Could 6-DoF ever be available in 4.2 if players could forgive small Graphics issues

[Mysticpuma]

I'm just asking if this option could ever be considered for a future patch, if the community could forgive slight issues with graphics sometimes not being perfect?

Currently there are many switches available for options to be turned on and off in the game and I wonder if it would be possible to add a switch enabling 6-DoF, thereby giving the user the option of whether they want to choose the 6-DoF option and maybe put up with a few minor Graphic issues, or whether they leave the switch off and then keep the POV as it currently is?

I'm only putting out there the consideration that 6-DoF is possible, but there may be the occasional Graphics issue that I can appreciate the absolute purists will want, but some of us actually enjoy the experience of flying an aircraft and to have a choice for the User of the Sim to switch it on or off would be IMHO a welcome offering in a future patch?

Look here as-well to see Bearcat's post at the Ubi Forums;

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=2051024119&r=4521074119#4521074119

[CharveL]

Oh it's more than possible to add it in.

The thing is Oleg doesn't want it in. Mostly artistic reasons because of unfinished polys and such but in some planes I think you can see through parts of the cockpit for an unfair advantage I guess.

I pretty much stick to offline anyway until CoD comes out so I use 4.09 with the 6DOF mod.

Would be nice if it went official but I can't see that happening.

[Mysticpuma]

I pretty much stick to offline anyway until CoD comes out so I use 4.09 with the 6DOF mod.

Would be nice if it went official.

See, that's my point, it would be a user choice whether it was turned on, rather than just saying....it is possible (we know it is), but sorry you don't have a choice.

Just asking if we could have a choice really in the difficult switch menu perhaps? Just a switch on or off to enable it?

Cheers, MP

[pupo162]

voted no.

Without a massive changes in a lot of stuff in the game 6 dof is unreliable. Even on modpacks very few, next to noone as 100% functioanl 6dof, and we all now the poly counts on those pits, who look awsome, are behond TD limitations.

[Mysticpuma]

I think this is why I made the suggestion that a switch in the Graphics/Difficulty would allow each individual their own choice as to whether they want the option. Strangely, if the poll has a higher 'Yes' rating it would indicate it would be welcome, but even if it is 50/50 that's exactly what a switch option woukd give, either half would switch it on and half would switch it off. Cheers, MP

[Red Dragon-DK]

Now we gona see how many, who have a tracking device. Or dont know how to set it up :-D It´s only natural to vote yes, if you have one and know how to use it. I dont think the grafik is a big issus compair to whatyou get from 6DOF in my own humble opinion. Thats why I ALLWAYS fly with mods and would not dream of going back to the stock ones. It feels so wrong to having a frame blocking your view and cant move your head.

[Sven]

Now we gona see how many, who have a tracking device. Or dont know how to set it up :-D It´s only natural to vote yes, if you have one and know how to use it.

And it's natural that when you don't have a tracking device you vote no, why on earth would I give my opponent an even bigger advantage ( than he already has ) by making him able to cover almost every angle with his vision, even glitched vision which make him or her look in unnatural positions what in RL wasn't even possible.

but I'm not voting since this thread is probably meant for those with tracking devices..

[SEE]

Glitched? Some people must have a different version to me, my 6DOF is perfectly OK.

[Red Dragon-DK]

And it's natural that when you don't have a tracking device you vote no, why on earth would I give my opponent an even bigger advantage ( than he already has ) by making him able to cover almost every angle with his vision, even glitched vision which make him or her look in unnatural positions what in RL wasn't even possible.

but I'm not voting since this thread is probably meant for those with tracking devices..

Q:why on earth would I give my opponent an even bigger advantage ( than he already has )

The same reson as you have a joystick and some have not. I know some who is flying with keyboard and not have a joystick. Few yes, but they are there.My piont is. It is a part of todays sim hardware. Some have it and some dont. Some have a bigger screen and some have a small. Sorry that argument is a bit old to me. I have been flying with TIR since 2003. So its not a new thing that can come as a surprise.
should one go for the lowest common denominator all the time, there would be no development. And personally I think it is time to upgrade to 6DOF is possible. Imagine if when we had to wait to the last could afford to buy a computer it could handle COD. I think game developers would go bankrupt if they had been unable to sell the last new and demanding sim.

But this is my personal opinion. And no one need agree with it.

[LoBiSoMeM]

And the funniest thing if that HT devices can be really cheap, even cheaper than a good joystick...

We live in the darkness... Sad!

[|450|Leady]

6DOF doesn't require trackir. I've got a version that works via the mouse. Kind of negates the argument that 6DOF is only for the rich or gives an unfair advantage to those willing to spend lots eh?

Cheers

Leady

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I voted 'yes'. But I want to add: "...only, if its done in a different way as in modification."

[Bricks]

IMHO we don't need full movement. A little 6DOF, just to look around struts would be well enough. I also think this would minimize possible complications.

[klem]

........ why on earth would I give my opponent an even bigger advantage ( than he already has ) by making him able to cover almost every angle with his vision, even glitched vision which make him or her look in unnatural positions what in RL wasn't even possible.

but I'm not voting since this thread is probably meant for those with tracking devices..

Because the world has moved on and we know it isn't flat any more.

An option to have it on gives choice and you don't have to use those servers if you don't want to (but do you remember the mod/Vanilla server numbers before 4.10 came out?). While the graphics won't always be perfect the immersion will be improved and that has far more value than having your head stuck in a frame with perfect graphics just because the view is so limited. There are other things in Vanilla IL-2 that aren't perfect anyway.

I would think the mods guys would have no problem working with TD given what they have achieved already.

XXXXXXXXXXXI'm not voting because...XXXXXXXXXXXXX
I'm voting, but.....
1. Its pointless, you could never get a proper poll through a thread
2. The players have already voted, just think back to the pre-4.10 server numbers and what they will be again when the mods community catches up with 4.10. I believe the single most preferred mod is 6dof.

[pupo162]

I voted 'yes'. But I want to add: "...only, if its done in a different way as in modification."

Dispoite i voted "no", would it be possible to implement 4DOF where the zoom of player head controls the in game zoom? ( wich is available in a rotatary already fro m4.10)

This would require no neew cockpits, and give not others unffair advantage.

Myonly issue with 6DOF- ze mod, is that it simply does not work properly with rolling and panning around, when i use it i tned ot switch this off and keep my head on the pole.

[Wolf_Rider]

I'm just asking if this option could ever be considered for a future patch, if the community could forgive slight issues with graphics sometimes not being perfect?

Currently there are many switches available for options to be turned on and off in the game and I wonder if it would be possible to add a switch enabling 6-DoF, thereby giving the user the option of whether they want to choose the 6-DoF option and maybe put up with a few minor Graphic issues, or whether they leave the switch off and then keep the POV as it currently is?

I'm only putting out there the consideration that 6-DoF is possible, but there may be the occasional Graphics issue that I can appreciate the absolute purists will want, but some of us actually enjoy the experience of flying an aircraft and to have a choice for the User of the Sim to switch it on or off would be IMHO a welcome offering in a future patch?



That really is some noble thinking Mysticpuma, but I think most people would recognise straight up that the cries of "developer's dodgy graphics" would ring loud after a while "developer releases half baked product", etc, etc




no vote recorded

[SEE]

Pointless argument regards adavantage/merits, anyone who wants 6DOF just adds it anyway.

[Letum]

I don't think that adding features with known, correctable bugs without any intention of fixing said bugs is a professional thing to do.

I'm glad 1C avoids doing that kind of thing. We would have a poor game if they did that often.

[TheDawg]

And it's natural that when you don't have a tracking device you vote no, why on earth would I give my opponent an even bigger advantage ( than he already has ) by making him able to cover almost every angle with his vision, even glitched vision which make him or her look in unnatural positions what in RL wasn't even possible.



ding! I think as mentioned some textures just wouldn't show up- you'd have an unobstructed view in addition to the advantage already.

p.s. trackers hate padlock, it evens the score! :twisted:

[KG26_Alpha]

Hmm.

Imagine Olegs horror at all the you-tube vid's of his sims cockpits with 6DoF showing glitched panels and invisible bitz and pieces all over the place.

I don't think it should be an option or anything as it wasn't designed for 6DoF in the first place.





.

[15.Span_Valalo]

Please Team Daidalos... We want the 6DOF already!!!!!

[W32Blaster]

Poll Status today
80% pro 6DOF
20% con.

Easy to determine what to do ...

[klem]

ding! I think as mentioned some textures just wouldn't show up- you'd have an unobstructed view in addition to the advantage already.

p.s. trackers hate padlock, it evens the score! :twisted:

Thesde 'glitches' are minor, some small missing graphics areas in a few cockpits when you head is out to the side (as far as it will allow, not a ridiculous amount). Have the guys saying 'No' even seen the mods 6DOF cockpits in action?

As for 'unfair advantage', first of all the glitches are so small they offer no advantage especially in a moving arena and in any case TrackIR offers an advantage over anyone that doesn't have it, 6 DOF or not, not to mention Joysticks versus mouse/keyboard, 4GHz i7 950/GTX580 versus 1.6GHz Pentium4/7600. You can argue the 'equipment' side for ever, it's meaningless.

Yes I hate padlock from my own point of view, it's an arcade setting and it does my head in.

[Bearcat]

Glitched? Some people must have a different version to me, my 6DOF is perfectly OK.

So is mine... and truth be told the unsightly "errors" are so fleeting when they do appear. I am certain that I am, not alone.. but I have yet to see an advantage offline or online gained from seeing a fleeting glimpse of whatever through a virtual 5mm crack in the pit.. I usually sit up pretty straight and whern I am trying to either track or acquire a bandit the last thing am trying to do is see through some minute seam.. I am either looking up or around.... Even in flying stock without 6DoF what I miss about the 6DoF are the little things.. being able to look around a spar, usually for home plate when I am landing... or around my joystick to see a gauge.. or even something as simple as blocking the sun by moving my head a bit to the left or right.. which was perfectly doable in a real warbird but usually because of the fluidity of aerial combat and flying in general was fleeting..

I think that there are several mods that could be implemented into the stock sim..In fact I think that that would go a long way to bringing folks back to the stock sim en masse.... If they swallowed their pride.. and added some of the mod variants... only the best ones... and some of the functional mods .. like the mod that allowed you to set a default speedbar as in metric or English.. and the mini map zoom mod... the skin mod.. the splashscreen mod.. I like having my custom Splashscreen.. and of course the skinmod...

While it is true that some of the mod planes are not as good as others.. some of the variants are quite good... and some like the P-51 actually corrected issues in the stock sim as evidenced in the better stability of the P-51 in 4.10. In the end it is about the sim. We all know that Oleg Maddox & 1C is the greatest combat flight sim developers to date.. there is little debate about that and if there were .. the product would speak for itself.. and CoD will only serve to cement that fact in the books...

These 'glitches' are minor, some small missing graphics areas in a few cockpits when you head is out to the side (as far as it will allow, not a ridiculous amount). Have the guys saying 'No' even seen the mods 6DOF cockpits in action?

As for 'unfair advantage', first of all the glitches are so small they offer no advantage especially in a moving arena and in any case TrackIR offers an advantage over anyone that doesn't have it, 6 DOF or not, not to mention Joysticks versus mouse/keyboard, 4GHz i7 950/GTX580 versus 1.6GHz Pentium4/7600. You can argue the 'equipment' side for ever, it's meaningless.

Yes I hate padlock from my own point of view, it's an arcade setting and it does my head in.

Pretty much..

http://file.walagata.com/w/bearcat/6dofglitch1.jpg
http://file.walagata.com/w/bearcat/6dofglitch2.jpg

I'd get shot down a lot quicker if I were trying to find some kind of advantage in a gap like that.. and mind you.. I have to hold my head in that position to see that view.. Usually thiongs are happening too fast for that to happen.

[LoBiSoMeM]

When I said that these glitches are "minor", I almost got stoned by TD and all fanboys...

I voted "yes", but I don't have great hopes, as Freetrack suport in IL-2:CoD. Consumers and 1C/TD have diverse opinions about what is best for us flyers.

But let's see what's happens...

[SEE]

The on-line is a total mess at the moment with so many different mod and version servers. It will 'stabilise' but the simple fact is that anyone who wants 6DOF can have it either as part of a comprehensive 3rd party pack or a discreet 'add-on' and keep a separate install for vanilla MP. The problem is that once a player invests in Headtracking he may well 'conside'r or be 'curious' as to the added benefits of 6DOF. This player is now in the 'modding' community and I suspect that many are caught in the "oh, that looks good, and wow, I can have this too!" My first encounter with headtracking was - "I wan't to try 6DOF......" the rest is history and I now have 3 versions installed on my HD. My favourite is 4.10.1 with 6DOF, a few nice maps and my early Spits for SP/MP BoB campaigns. Thats it for me - don't want or need anything else.

Would these stop me buying CoD.......absolutely not!

[Mysticpuma]

Bearcat, you nailed the argument perfectly.

All I am asking for is a switch, even with a warning that "Enabling this may cause minor graphical glitches" may be added?

This for me will bring IL2 so-far up to date it would be a great optional addition.

Cheers, MP

(and 82% want it in the poll too!)

[FlyingShark]

I voted yes.

~S~

[Bearcat]

In many ways I see this as a watershed moment... whether or not they realize it... with the addidion of a few key mods... 1C could in a way "take back" IL2... This is something that would benefit the community.. because many of us really don't need the 53 109 and 31 Fw 190 variants in the UP2.01 and while some of them could probably be added to the sim the 9 FW-190 variants and 15 Me-109 variants in 4.10.1 are a pretty darned good selection. even if 25% of the modded planes were added to the sim, along with 6DoF and a few other mods.. it would go along long way to getting the sim back into 1Cs hands so to speak... and of course this is just my opinion.. but I know a lot of guys who still fly modded basically because they want 6DoF.. and they want more in the the way of Mustangs as just one example... than the limited selection offered in the stock sim.

Some modders will always prefer to run modded just because they can.. and I have nothing against mods.. especially now after the overall classy way that thisa community handled them... but I am absolutely certain that if given the choice between a more secure official version with some of the added functionality of mods.. some which had been asked for for years... years.... and a ever changing, ever evolving smorgasbord of stuff that a lot of folks will never use... a whole bunch of folks would go the official route.... by choice..

It is obvious from the comments that many who are opposed to adding 6DoF officially to the sim either have never seen it work... or are going on some of the things that were early in the mod stage. The fact that what most of us fly with now is much tighter than those horrible shots from a few years back when this all got started says that there is a way to limit it.. but I have to admit.. a little 6DoF is better than none..

I'd be willing to bet that if 1C & TD took a serious look at what mods the community would like to see added to the sim... and not just the planes and such.. and then weeded out the ones that were not doable.... or tried to figure a way to make them doable.. a lot of people would actually prefer to fly stock.. From where I sit this is one of those moments where balance can be returned to the force..

and as I said.. of course that is just my opinion.

[Fafnir_6]

and as I said.. of course that is just my opinion.

+1

I agree. Couple this with selectable external sound schemes as suggested by Azimech, maybe some effects and selectable map repaints for the legacy stock maps for those with the hardware to take advantage and you will have taken away the reason for many users to use mods. Mods will always be with us, however. The plethora of modded planes unavailable in the stock game and the jerks on the board or directors of Northrop Grumman make the continued existance of mods a virtual certainty. Multiple IL-2 installs are a great thing :).

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[kimosabi]

Tracker devices are so commonly available now, that rejecting it seems pigheaded. I bet that everyone that voted no have never tried using a head tracker with IL-2.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Head tracking works also for 2DoF or 4DoF etc... 6DoF is not only about 'tracking device: yes or no'.

Maybe some are just satisfied with how the tracking does work now?

[LoBiSoMeM]

Maybe some are just satisfied with how the tracking does work now?

Some maybe, but not me and 82.68% of the people that voted in this topic until now. We can have 6DOF with some glitches. We want that. TD can make it available in 2 minutes. Why not?

I know the answer: "we have rigid standards of..."

Well, we consumers have ours to, and we know we can fly OK with 6DOF, we already do, it's up to OURS "rigid standards"...

I never saw in patching history one feature so needed, with all the consumers happy with some glitches, and devs that simply don't give that to us.

Amazing! And after all, I'm "rude"... Man, we need to beg a lot to 1C/Oleg/TD, and we receive things we don't want, like the "glorified" arming bomb fuse...

Maybe TD need to think a little about what people want...

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

No... I won't feel pissed. No... I won't....

See, I voted 'yes' too. But my 'yes' is definitly different from yours.
And 'your rigid standard' it out of my interest. Too low.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Too low for me is flying without 6DOF HT, when I can have it with a little mod.

But really I don't care. Maybe "vanilla" servers can consider the 6DOF mod "stock" and stop this discussion. TD must be ignored in this subject. 6DOF is out there, as a lot of "TD hard work"...

Simple. Boring discussion. Just an "insight" why modding is good, not bad as a lot of people in IL-2 community think...

[SEE]

I voted 'yes' too. But my 'yes' is definitly different from yours.


That's an interesting reply, does that 'imply' that your personal view (not TD), is that an 'authorised' 6DOF mod/DLC would be your preffered solution and allow access to stock servers?

If so, a lot of us would be happy with that solution.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Its not only my own oppinion (speaking of the teams members), that 6DoF functionality, if made properly, would be a very nice feature indeed. We are neither blind nor dumb.
Its just the fact, that the mod-version isn't the way to go for us.

[kimosabi]

Head tracking works also for 2DoF or 4DoF etc... 6DoF is not only about 'tracking device: yes or no'.

Maybe some are just satisfied with how the tracking does work now?

People not interested in immersion would be satisfied yes.

6DoF is useless without a head tracker. Goes hand in hand. ;)

[Bearcat]

Head tracking works also for 2DoF or 4DoF etc... 6DoF is not only about 'tracking device: yes or no'.

Maybe some are just satisfied with how the tracking does work now?

This is more than likely true... but I'd be willing to bet that out of those who are satisfied with what we have now.. in the stock sim.. most of them have not tried the 6DoF as implemented in the mods.. and .. truthfully.. it is just not that bad.. certainly not as bad as so many who have never tried it make it out to be.. It is also limited in it's advantages. While it is true that anyone with any kind of head tracking has an advantage to some degree over someone using a hat switch.. as small as it may be, just as someone who uses a program like VAC to command their AI has a better interface than one using a keyboard.. (That's all I use VAC for) that advantage is as I said limited.. It is also an optionthat to some degree is available to anyone. The difference between having 6DoF and not having it is for me at least primarily purely immersive.. being able to look around a gauge.. Having to lean unto a gun sight in the case of a plane with an off center sight.. scanning the skies.. or the ground for that matter.. for friendlies.. bandits.. or home plate.. is just so much more immersive when I can lean in all the directions that my body can lean.

All that to me is more immersion... and the immersion gained is worth the immersion lost with the minor glitches.. Everyone keeps saying that all the pits would have to be repainted.. and that is just not true... The original screens of 6DoF were horrible... (I remember seeing one where the pilot's head was outside the cockpit in a 190.. ) but the final mod was tightened up to minimize that and keep things not only in the pit but minimizing the graphical glitches.... surely TD with the help of 1C can tighten that up a bit more where needed, considering that in most cases pilots were strapped in and truth be told they didn't have a whole lot of 6D movement.. but they did have some.. in the stock sim there is none..

The only reason I am going on about this is because I sincerely believe that if certain mods like 6DoF and some of the others I mentioned were incorporated into the stock sim... perhaps gradually at first .. but eventually more people would fly stock.. There will always be those who prefer mods... but believe me.. more would fly stock under the circumstances I mentioned, and that would mean that all the work TD is doing, great work I might add, would be beneficial to more of the community as a whole on a more regular basis.. Something to thunk about.. Regardless to what TD decides.. I will still fly modded and stock.. but if certain mods are added to the stock sim I will fly stock much much more.. and I think that the online community will as well...

This is also not meant to be a slam on mods... I believe that mods opened up a lot of possibilities in this sim and we would probably not be where we are now had it not been for the mods. Even though the widespread cheating that everyone was initially concerned about never occurred (a wonderful testament to the character of this community IMO) the fact still remains that the security of an official version of the sim, with many of the long requested features.. some which have already been added to the stock sim by TD and some which are only found in mods at the moment.. would go a long way towards unifying the online segment of this community in a manner that is not dependent on the individual mod communities, of which there are at least 4 major players, reaching some kind of mutual agreement.. I wonder if that is even possible considering, even though the level of acrimony between the various modding groups has gone down considerably to almost a whisper.. there is still a level of contention. With TD taking the initiative and being officially sanctioned by 1C it would be easier for them to work through any obstacles from some of these mods simply because they would have access to the source. They don't have to add every plane or every mod, just some of them, particularly some of the ones that they have put off the table at the moment. This way... if you were online... and you wanted a certain level of commonality that was pretty much guaranteed the stock version would be and indeed as it should be where the community at large would turn. As it is now that is not the case.

I believe that the creation of TD and it's sanctioning by Oleg is a bigger key to that unification than many initially realized.. and the fullness of the future of this franchise in it's golden years rests squarely in the hands of Oleg & TD and what they decide to do over the next year or so. Once CoD is released the count down will begin... slowly at first.. but steadily as more theaters are released under the SoW engine.. (I prefer to still call it that just to distinguish it from the original engine..). I don't think this sim will die for a long long time.. but I do think that as the better product expands... it will take from this community.. Either way the crown will stay with the king AFAIC.

Just food for thought.........

[JAMF]

6DoF is useless without a head tracker. Goes hand in hand. ;)Well... with webcam head tracking, this immersive enjoyment is a small "price of 2 pizza" investment away. ;)

[Bearcat]

Do me a flavor and Hit this poll at UBI (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2051024119)

[arthursmedley]

The only real reason I use mods is to enable 6DoF on my trackir. I've never quite understood the reasoning for not having it enabled within the stock game whilst having the 'hooks' for trackir anyway. It would be wonderful if TD could enable this in the next official patch.

Oh look, registered over three years ago and at last a subject I feel sufficiently worth posting about here!

[orangefood]

6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6d ov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov 6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6d ov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov 6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6d ov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov6dov 6dov6dov6dov!!

[KG26_Alpha]

6DoF

Its simply unrealistic as its in its present form, you cannot move around that much in a fighter aircraft when strapped in, you are not wearing an inertia belting system in these aircraft you simply cannot move as given by 6DoF.
Any forward movement for gun sights was done by seat adjustment not the pilot leaning forwards.

Zooming forwards and unplucking your eyeballs from your skull and placing them on the canopy, rotating your head almost 180 degrees is worse than the present viewing system.




.

[Mysticpuma]

Ans if we had a switch to either enable or disable the option in the setup......that would be okay then ;)

It would be down to an individuals personal preference whether they wanted it active or not. I see no problem with giving the user an option to have 6DoF if they want to enable it? As BC has said, if the movement was modified to TD/1C standards, the pilot could still lean left or right, forward or backwards....if THEY chose to.

It's an optional switch, that's all that is being asked for, no-more, no-less?

Cheers, MP

[T_O_A_D]

6Dof is the initial reason I even tried the Hacked versions of the game.

The 109 had cliping in the rear wing root for years, without 6dof, and it took the modding community to address that.

So what, if we have a bit of clipping on other aircraft at this point.

And from my experience, I've found no clipping that aids in my situation awareness, just untidy rendering.

Heck I noticed yesterday after all these years the FW190 struts shadow is disconnected from the aircraft shadow. This game isn't perfect, and very long on the tooth. So whats the difference at this point.

From what I understand, a large majority of TD started out in this venture they now have as part of the contributing Modder community anyway.

I say they should step up and fix it, the best they can. If nothing more than to incorporate it, as is into the stock version.

Besides its goo for my abs moving in and out, and around. LOL

Olegs next game, with the experience gained from IL2 can be perfect.

[SEE]

Zooming forwards and unplucking your eyeballs from your skull and placing them on the canopy, rotating your head almost 180 degrees is worse than the present viewing system.

Whilst I accept that observation (no pun intended...:grin:), it's interesting to note that 4.10 included 'zoom' on a slider. I don't know about other users, but I don't like using excessive zoom (either in 6DOF or 2 DOF with Zoom) and limit the response in the Zaxis - both magnify 'headshake'. The counter argument is that there are many unrealistic 'viewing' features in IL2 (and most games/sims) but 'swivelling ones head' 180 degrees is just one in a very long list and can also be accomplishedd with normal POV, mouse lookaround, and...... in 4.10 2DOF.

[Sven]

6DoF

Its simply unrealistic as its in its present form, you cannot move around that much in a fighter aircraft when strapped in, you are not wearing an inertia belting system in these aircraft you simply cannot move as given by 6DoF.
Any forward movement for gun sights was done by seat adjustment not the pilot leaning forwards.

Zooming forwards and unplucking your eyeballs from your skull and placing them on the canopy, rotating your head almost 180 degrees is worse than the present viewing system.

.

+ 1 Exactly!

[352nd Persecutor]

I don't understand some of you guys. So there are a few graphic glitches? So what! There are graphic glitches all over this game, and it is still the best thing around there is!

Don't believe me when I say there are graphic glitches all over the game? Carefully check the Kurland map! There are all sorts of problems with the map, from a detailed editor's point of view, but it's still a fabulous place to fly. The Kurland map is just one of many; the Ardennes map also has its share of issues. If one were to look hard one would find them everywhere. Every plane has at least one. It's just the way it is.

I can't imagine this game without 6DoF! That's one of the strongest reasons, IMHO, for a modded game. I suspect that the real objection is from those of you who don't have or don't use TrackIR, and I can't imagine flying without it, so perhaps it's just me.

In any event, the answer to MP's poll is, to me, a no-brainer. It's a clear "YES". If you don't like 6DoF, don't use it. But don't deny its use to those of us who do use it.

And Oleg's objection, if indeed it is, to graphic issues is, to my way of thinking, no objection at all. Graphic issues are always there. Oh well, live with them!

[Lixma]

I know....

Let's get the current plane-set's gaps and holes filled so 6DOF can happen without glitches. A lot of work, yes, but then you release it as....

IL-2 : Anniversary Edition

:!:

It will bring the game up to date, future-proof it for a while and bring in some revenue for TD or 1C:Maddox.

[kimosabi]

6DoF

Its simply unrealistic as its in its present form, you cannot move around that much in a fighter aircraft when strapped in, you are not wearing an inertia belting system in these aircraft you simply cannot move as given by 6DoF.
Any forward movement for gun sights was done by seat adjustment not the pilot leaning forwards.

Zooming forwards and unplucking your eyeballs from your skull and placing them on the canopy, rotating your head almost 180 degrees is worse than the present viewing system.



You obviously haven't researched your own head movement abilities. Try moving your head to the sides and see past your monitor. I bet you can, I can with my 24", sitting roughly 80cm away, and a normal 24" monitor is about the same width as a front canopy frame. The cockpits weren't that big either. See, because pilots are strapped in, they needed to move their heads quite a bit. Hence the term "rubber neck".

[Avimimus]

It depends how long/how much one has sat at computers... ;)

[Tolwyn]

Unfortunately the answers to this poll are so biased, it's ridiculous.

A simple Yes or No would have been better than introducing the poll-authors bias.

I think I'd like my 2¢ here in this thread.

I voted no.
For a few reasons, but I'll focus on one that gets overlooked.

I've been strapped in an aerobatic plane (a Citabria, to be precise). I couldn't lean forward if I wanted to. So, my head was "stuck to a stick, thank you very much." I had some limited "wiggle room" but not much.

So, 6DOF is a gimmick in a WW2 game, since you'd be strapped so damn tight into your plane you wouldn't be able to do what you guys would like to do with 6DOF enabled.

And you don't get to have it both ways. If you loosened your straps (virtually) to have enabled that freedom, you would need to face the consequences of a severe g-loaded maneuver not being properly strapped in.

Wanna add that? :)

I have a TrackIR. I've had a TrackIR since 2003 or 2004.
But in my opinion, to model 6DOF in a way that would be realistic in the paradigm of being strapped into a cockpit wouldn't make many if any of you happy.

[Tolwyn]

You obviously haven't researched your own head movement abilities. Try moving your head to the sides and see past your monitor. I bet you can, I can with my 24", sitting roughly 80cm away, and a normal 24" monitor is about the same width as a front canopy frame. The cockpits weren't that big either. See, because pilots are strapped in, they needed to move their heads quite a bit. Hence the term "rubber neck".

Yup. And the game currently gives "rubber neck" the right treatment.
Also... head on a swivel. You can't really move that swivel forward and back and kiss your instruments.

[Billfish]

Frankly, I turn off the 6DoF option as the way it all sits I simply didn't like it and will do so stock or not.

K2

[Feathered_IV]

Voted Yes. Including as a selectable option would be outstanding.

[Falke]

Voted yes.

I use it with my UP 201 and it sure is nice to be able to lean this way and that, or duck your head to look around canopy frame, to see and track other a/c exactly as you would in real life, never having your head leave the cockpit mind you, nor notice and rendering problems.

If you don't have it, or haven't tried it you're missing one of the things that brings Olegs masterpiece even closer to perfection! It really is that good.

[trashcanman]

Voted No.
Team Blueadalos have only nerfed a few RAF aircraft so far.
They should be allowed to focus their time and energy on improving the 109 and 190 still further, enhancing the explosive power of German bombs and fiddling with the Spitfire FM to create yet more mystical anti-torque.
Apparently "refraction" can remove the 190 bar but doesn't work on the P-47 razorback gunsight ....
Imho Oleg has allowed this bunch of chancers to officially mod IL-2 in order to generate sales for CloD by making IL-2 a joke game :(
When you look at the map textures, bomb doors, AI flyables, 6DoF etc etc etc available in UP in a far more stable format than 4.10 it beggars believe :confused:
Team Blueadalos is Olegs secret marketing tool ;)

[Clipperkite]

The arguments against the introduction of 6dof simply don't add-up in my view. If the nay-sayers are to be believed, once strapped into a WW2 fighter you had very little ability to move around, let alone look behind you. Well, if that is true would someone please explain to me why 'blown' canopies, of the malcolm hood and bubble type were introduced? What purpose would they serve? Why would you completely redesign the fuselage of an aircraft like the Spit and the Mustang to accomodate these new canopies if you couldn't actually take advantage of the increased visibility they afforded??

It simply doesn't make any sense. Have a look at the early canopies of PRU Spits. You will see bulges added on the sides to facilitate a better downward view. Why would you do this if you can't actually move/tilt your head??

Read some of the tactical reports made of fighters after the intrduction of blown canopies. The test pilots make it very clear that the view to the rear of the aircraft is greatly improved.

The existing non-modded IL-2 view is about as unrealistic as it is possible to be. For godness sake lets just stop the madness and just make the change! 6dof makes the game so much more enjoyable.

[SEE]

Yup. And the game currently gives "rubber neck" the right treatment.
Also... head on a swivel. You can't really move that swivel forward and back and kiss your instruments.

So why include zoom, or Gunsight view, or Padlock, external views, open cockpits and ac with magic icons over them. The title has 'difficulty' levels and players select which difficulty they prefer - these arguments smack of 'elitsm' and:-

a) assume that everyone wants full realism. Have a good look at the 'servers' and the ratio of difficulty levels.

b) even on a full switch server you can zoom or select views beyond the capability of a human being with or without headtracking!

I am not convinced by any argument against - they don't hold merit IMO.

[Fenrir]

Voted No.
Team Blueadalos have only nerfed a few RAF aircraft so far.
They should be allowed to focus their time and energy on improving the 109 and 190 still further, enhancing the explosive power of German bombs and fiddling with the Spitfire FM to create yet more mystical anti-torque.
Apparently "refraction" can remove the 190 bar but doesn't work on the P-47 razorback gunsight ....
Imho Oleg has allowed this bunch of chancers to officially mod IL-2 in order to generate sales for CloD by making IL-2 a joke game :(
When you look at the map textures, bomb doors, AI flyables, 6DoF etc etc etc available in UP in a far more stable format than 4.10 it beggars believe :confused:
Team Blueadalos is Olegs secret marketing tool ;)

The only joke here is your attitude. Take a hike loser.

[Fenrir]

To quote Tom Neil, famous Battle of Britain and Malta Hurricane pilot, and later flyer of Mk V and Mk XII Spitfires on ops:

"... the pilot strapped himself in using his Sutton harness - left shoulder, right leg, right shoulder, left leg - which were secured in the area of his tummy by an outsize peg which went through a hole and was kept in place by a split pin; the more familiar quick release box was not available until much later in the war. Inertia straps also being a gadget of the future, he then would flick up his harness release toggle, enabling him to lean forward and adjust instruments, or whatever."


Nuff said. You ulterior agenda boys have really gotta try harder, you know.

[carl]

tolwyn wrote
Unfortunately the answers to this poll are so biased, it's ridiculous.

A simple Yes or No would have been better than introducing the poll-authors bias.

I think I'd like my 2¢ here in this thread.

I voted no.
For a few reasons, but I'll focus on one that gets overlooked.

I've been strapped in an aerobatic plane (a Citabria, to be precise). I couldn't lean forward if I wanted to. So, my head was "stuck to a stick, thank you very much." I had some limited "wiggle room" but not much.

So, 6DOF is a gimmick in a WW2 game, since you'd be strapped so damn tight into your plane you wouldn't be able to do what you guys would like to do with 6DOF enabled.

And you don't get to have it both ways. If you loosened your straps (virtually) to have enabled that freedom, you would need to face the consequences of a severe g-loaded maneuver not being properly strapped in.

Wanna add that?

I have a TrackIR. I've had a TrackIR since 2003 or 2004.
But in my opinion, to model 6DOF in a way that would be realistic in the paradigm of being strapped into a cockpit wouldn't make many if any of you happy

plus 1

i flew firefly aerobatics up to a mere 4.5g, loose straps would not have been much fun, and poll wording certainly seems bias although doubt it really had much influance

[Bearcat]

6DoF

Its simply unrealistic as its in its present form, you cannot move around that much in a fighter aircraft when strapped in, you are not wearing an inertia belting system in these aircraft you simply cannot move as given by 6DoF.
Any forward movement for gun sights was done by seat adjustment not the pilot leaning forwards.

Zooming forwards and unplucking your eyeballs from your skull and placing them on the canopy, rotating your head almost 180 degrees is worse than the present viewing system.

.

That is a bogus argument.

At best.

Zoom is and always has been a feature of this sim.. and actually every sim over the past 12 years or so, at least everyone I have flown.. from the moment that macros were possible it was possible to have zoom on a simulated slider... even though zoom is now on a slider.. my zoom is still the way it has been.. with a macro, set at .002 second intervals .. and you can say what misinformed mumbo jumbo you want.. but if you try to fly and fight zoomed in you will die a quick virtual death... Zoom definitely has it's place in any sim.. and that, because it is part of the stock sim and always has been.. even before TIR came out, renders it a non issue.

6DoF doesn't need to stay in it's present form.. but it needs to be implemented.. and the mods have shown us that it is possible.. There are many features in this sim that take into consideration the fact that every one using it is not 19-24 years old with 20-20 vision and that we are trying to reproduce and fight in a 3D world on a 2D screen..


I know....
Let's get the current plane-set's gaps and holes filled so 6DOF can happen without glitches. A lot of work, yes, but then you release it as....
IL-2 : Anniversary Edition
:!:
It will bring the game up to date, future-proof it for a while and bring in some revenue for TD or 1C:Maddox.

That is not going to happen unless they use some of Freddie's repaints.. but to tighten it up and put it in the official stock version of the sim would go a long way to offering the community a standard they can rely upon. As I said some folks will always fly modded.. but many, myself included if given some of the options I have now in the modded sim in a stock version, particularly the ones mentioned by Neil and myself.. and some of the improved loadouts and planes.. like the Mustang 25s.. and 30s... and the A and the additional K-14 gunsights on some planes that actually had them like some of the Spits & Jugs... , would take that option knowing that anyone who wanted to join a server we were in woukld have to be flying the same version.. As it is now regardless to the version ... you cant get in a stock server if you have mods correct?

Put some of the mods in the stock version.. even a modified 6DoF and you will have more people flying stock. There will always be people who will fly modded.. that is a done deal.. and that too is a good thing... (might as well be..) but give those who would like to fly stock more reasons to do so... so that 1C will be the cake.. and the mods will be the icing.. for may... for the moment at least it is the other way around.

again... just food for thought...

[Feathered_IV]

Voted No.
Team Blueadalos have only nerfed a few RAF aircraft so far.
They should be allowed to focus their time and energy on improving the 109 and 190 still further, enhancing the explosive power of German bombs and fiddling with the Spitfire FM to create yet more mystical anti-torque.
Apparently "refraction" can remove the 190 bar but doesn't work on the P-47 razorback gunsight ....
Imho Oleg has allowed this bunch of chancers to officially mod IL-2 in order to generate sales for CloD by making IL-2 a joke game :(
When you look at the map textures, bomb doors, AI flyables, 6DoF etc etc etc available in UP in a far more stable format than 4.10 it beggars believe :confused:
Team Blueadalos is Olegs secret marketing tool ;)

It seems your personal issues are far beyond the scope of this thread, or perhaps even this forum. I'm curious though, could you explain for me the significance of the "Team Blueadalos" phrase. You use it as if it's some triumph of rapier-like wit and an overpowering intellectual smackdown, so I'm hoping you can explain.

[robtek]

Because of "strapped in and not being able to move much" i'd like to remark that from all i've read about it, it seems that most fighter pilots did choose to be only loosely strapped in to have the freedom to move.
Also in almost every description of a intended crash landing "tightening the straps" is mentioned.

[jameson]

Just like to post some thoughts here that occured whilst reading this thread. Firstly, that even if tightly strapped in, it is still possible to move your head from side to side and to rotate it to look somewhat behind you over the shoulder. Combine this with the very small canopy of the bf109, (and the Spitfire's cockpit and canopy were only very slightly bigger) and that alone would have afforded a fairly good all round view, IMHO. In fact, why were spitfires fitted early on with 'blown' canopies at all? Following the logic of some posters here it would have been a complete waste of time and effort, something the British didn't have much of in 1940. I have used headtracking in the past and think that this gives a much more realistic view from the cockpit (when it worked!), than the rigid pov permitted by the on stick hat switch. I didn't find the "holes" that much of a problem, and for 109's at least these were fixed early on by the modders. See Hauptmann Phillips on the Russian front sitting in his 109, at 20+ seconds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roO9v9M9QIo&NR=1

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Thats the funniest footcam of WW2 I 've ever seen (the guy that gets blown away).

To me this small timeframe, where you can see the pilot, tells me following: There is no much space to move upward. Pilot can definitly move his head quite a bit, even if he is strapped. Its even easy ergonomical testing, which I can do at home - without moving my upper body, I can get my eyes near the line of my shoulders, although I cannot keep my head straight horizontal, but have to bank it. I also can look directly behind me, but again not straight and with one eye only.

But I think this is all well clear - the fixed 4DoF is as unrealistic as the 6DoF in mods is.
I say the kind and ammount of movement in a WW2 airplane, no matter which one, is very restricted (with the Bf109 being a very narrow one). And a 6DoF solution has to be like this.

[Erkki]

Thats the funniest footcam of WW2 I 've ever seen (the guy that gets blown away).

To me this small timeframe, where you can see the pilot, tells me following: There is no much space to move upward. Pilot can definitly move his head quite a bit, even if he is strapped. Its even easy ergonomical testing, which I can do at home - without moving my upper body, I can get my eyes near the line of my shoulders, although I cannot keep my head straight horizontal, but have to bank it. I also can look directly behind me, but again not straight and with one eye only.

But I think this is all well clear - the fixed 4DoF is as unrealistic as the 6DoF in mods is.
I say the kind and ammount of movement in a WW2 airplane, no matter which one, is very restricted (with the Bf109 being a very narrow one). And a 6DoF solution has to be like this.

Agreed with. AHII has it pretty restricted already, but maybe still a little too loose. Also buttons and axis need to be given to those without head tracking devices.

Maybe also possibility to "save" a head position behind hotkeys, like the Shift+F1 button now in the game.

[janpitor]

I think this is a good idea. An 6-dof incorporated in a way simulating real restrictions and with a possibility of not using TIR

[Kubiszko]

Many people give up flying on servers without the 6DOF.
Now it is hard to find a server where people fly.I think one of the reason is the lack of 6DOF.
Only it keeps me in this extremely distorted historical favoring blue game.

I voted Yes

[Erkki]

Many people give up flying on servers without the 6DOF.
Now it is hard to find a server where people fly.I think one of the reason is the lack of 6DOF.
Only it keeps me in this extremely distorted historical favoring blue game.

I voted Yes

:grin:

[vicinity]

To anyone talking about how much you can move your head in a real WWII plane...it's pointless.

If you're going to talk about that then imagine for a second that you are sitting in one: now imagine you are looking through a box or a frame the size of your TV screen, and now imagine you close one eye. That's what you have on a 2D monitor - limited field of view and no peripheral vision.

I can move my eyes as well as my neck so even if i'm strapped in I could see a hell of a lot more than the current 2dof and that is what 6dof gives you.

[Cocoa]

Hello Gents,

Really interesting topic of course. I'm new to this forum, I have to tell I enjoyed the discussion on 6DOF.

I read a lot of comments and complaints of people without a tracking device. I'd like to suggest them to google "freetrack" keyword.It's not new. You will be surprised by it's performance and easyness. It is a free and excellent tool. You need to pay the cost of a webcam no more.

On the other hand, about the strapped-in pilots head movement. I think even if you strapped in your head can move pretty much. I experienced that in a cockpit. I had no problem to move left-right up-down my head, but yes i could not "zoom" in, and of course backwards view is somewhat restricted.
Now, moving along the "Zoom or Z-axis" is no issue we can forget it, as it was correctly pointed in a post : "that could be done even without 6dof in stock game", so it is not vaild point to discuss about, when 6dof is the subject.

Also I think that these days when TrackIR/Freetrack is avaible and 6DOF availbe, and it is enhancing indeed the inmersion, it is kinda silly not to include it. (I repeat freetrack actually democratize a lot the tracker-user community as it has almost no costs, and no high engineering skills are needed to do that.)

Of course with the 6DOF mod you can move further then in a real situation, but there is nothing else to relay on for 6DOF, so please include a proper 6DOF to the stock game and work it out with the limits it should have. That is the sane solution.

The argument that "trackir" users have advantage is again not too correct.

Why we dont limit then high end video cards, controllers with HOTAS, 1meter wide monitors all the rigs that gives 14440000fps, or longer view distance. Nobody would do that, I guess everybody is looking in this trade for a better immersion. 6DOF is a part of that, just like proper graphics etc.

I don't care about the small graphic glitches, I make no use of them 2mms between 2 panels..who would use that? Expet the spit where you have to see through the fusolage, want it or not, I recall maybe the Fw is like that too.

Small glitches or not I think there is no doubt that Il-2 has been the best on the market for a decade now, so maybe Mr. Maddox doesn't have to be shy about the small erros in the 3d models.

TD on the other side instead of giving us cirleing torpedos and guided bombs, (though I appreciate all kind of development-especially the G-load simulation which is something magical to have), could put more attention on 6DOF.



Soo my vote is a big huge "YES".

Thanks for your attention.

sorry for the ortography, had no time for spell check now....

[SEE]

1. Can the instruments be read accurately in normal view? Some can some cannot, you have to move in via Z axis. (2DOF? use zoom and change FOV's - there you go 2DOFr's, u 2 have a Z axis! (FOV's?...... bloody hell my Spit has a sliding chair that zips along the entire bloody cockpit...didn't someone say they were small?)

2. Can anyone instantly swivel their heads to their 6 in reality? No! but everyone can do that with or without HT in game. Pitch/Yaw axis in 6DOF is thus irrelevant especially given its identical in 2DOF!).

3. Is 2 DOF realistic? - of course it isn't (unless your pilot is cemented to the seat with an iron rod stuffed up his ass!)

This leaves us with three contentious axis - X, Y and roll, all of which are user adjustable (just in case you 2DOF guys didn't know)

The 'Rol'l or 'tilt' axis. Excessive roll axis is a hinderance in combat. Works best if set to a realistic level.

X-Y axis - too much and its a 'pain in the ass' (rather like that 'pole' stuffed up in it for 2DOF users). X-Y works best set to a realistic level.

Finally, I didn't know that there was global specification regards cockpit dimensions and that all fighters and Bombers at the onset of WW2 had to abide by them. All these years I was under the mistaken impression that a BF109 was more cramped than a Spitfire which had its canopy enlarged.

So, you guys want a 6 DOF pack that reflects 'realistic' movement -therefore modelled accurately for every ac in the game? wow!....impressive!

Oops! I called it a 'game'!

[T_O_A_D]

I've been strapped in a AT-6 a WW2 trainer with period proper chute and straps, and done hard maneuvers, I had more than enough wiggle room with my head.

I will admit, hold your head still against G to look through a gunsite would be difficult though.


Unfortunately the answers to this poll are so biased, it's ridiculous.

A simple Yes or No would have been better than introducing the poll-authors bias.

I think I'd like my 2¢ here in this thread.

I voted no.
For a few reasons, but I'll focus on one that gets overlooked.

I've been strapped in an aerobatic plane (a Citabria, to be precise). I couldn't lean forward if I wanted to. So, my head was "stuck to a stick, thank you very much." I had some limited "wiggle room" but not much.

So, 6DOF is a gimmick in a WW2 game, since you'd be strapped so damn tight into your plane you wouldn't be able to do what you guys would like to do with 6DOF enabled.

And you don't get to have it both ways. If you loosened your straps (virtually) to have enabled that freedom, you would need to face the consequences of a severe g-loaded maneuver not being properly strapped in.

Wanna add that? :)

I have a TrackIR. I've had a TrackIR since 2003 or 2004.
But in my opinion, to model 6DOF in a way that would be realistic in the paradigm of being strapped into a cockpit wouldn't make many if any of you happy.

OH and Oleg is including 6dof in COD so even he thinks its an addition to the simulation.

Nuff said I'd say on that.

[KG26_Alpha]

tolwyn wrote
Unfortunately the answers to this poll are so biased, it's ridiculous.

A simple Yes or No would have been better than introducing the poll-authors bias.

I think I'd like my 2¢ here in this thread.

I voted no.
For a few reasons, but I'll focus on one that gets overlooked.

I've been strapped in an aerobatic plane (a Citabria, to be precise). I couldn't lean forward if I wanted to. So, my head was "stuck to a stick, thank you very much." I had some limited "wiggle room" but not much.

So, 6DOF is a gimmick in a WW2 game, since you'd be strapped so damn tight into your plane you wouldn't be able to do what you guys would like to do with 6DOF enabled.

And you don't get to have it both ways. If you loosened your straps (virtually) to have enabled that freedom, you would need to face the consequences of a severe g-loaded maneuver not being properly strapped in.

Wanna add that?

I have a TrackIR. I've had a TrackIR since 2003 or 2004.
But in my opinion, to model 6DOF in a way that would be realistic in the paradigm of being strapped into a cockpit wouldn't make many if any of you happy

plus 1

i flew firefly aerobatics up to a mere 4.5g, loose straps would not have been much fun, and poll wording certainly seems bias although doubt it really had much influance

+1

[David198502]

4dof is available with 4.10m???how do i get the zoom to work with track ir
??

[FrankB]

Head tracking works also for 2DoF or 4DoF etc... 6DoF is not only about 'tracking device: yes or no'.

Maybe some are just satisfied with how the tracking does work now?

Like me :-) Not that I am against 6DoF, but I understand TD's point and don't brag about that.

Question: Now that we can have have zoom on a slider, would it be possible to move from 2DoF to 3DoF and add zoom feature to IL2's TrackIR code?

No graphical errors should manifest from that, since all views are already available.

[Oktoberfest]

Voted Yes. I'm glider pilot. It's cramped. I can still move my head in all direction. Just not lean too much forward, but I can look around the mountings at least.

[Gunshi091]

+1

+2

I fly ULM every sunday with my uncle except when wheather is bad , we are always strapped with the cross shaped belt , and even though you can look around you , it's quite difficult to look on your 6 oclock for prolonged period without hurting your neck when you are manoeuvering , your back is more or less stuck to the seat and there is no way to have the kind of freedom of view you have with 6dof unless you untie your belt or loosen it .

now that's only a ridiculously light and very slow plane compared to the 1000hp monsters we get to fly in the sim , i can easily guess that with a WWII pilot suit + oxygen mask/helmet/googles + stress/fatigue+ much tighter strapping +much faster plane pulling lot of G's = difficult to look behind you during manoeuvers or combat , even more difficult to get the kind of view angles you get with 6dof

If you implement 6DOF in IL-2 , maybe a suggestion would be to enable it ONLY when the pilot untie his belt/straps , fly level at low speed without pulling G's ...

But to achieve that , you'd need to simulate the strappings (model it , assign key for untie/tie belt ) so that cockpit view when unstrapped and strapped is different , and make penalties for a pilot who is fighting unstrapped (like for instance , injury or added fatigue or loss of consciousness ) .

So I'm not against 6DOF , but i think it should be implemented in conjunction with the belt/strappings , otherwise it would feel like you are a terminator un-strapped flying his plane in a bubble immune to gravity .

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

But to achieve that , you'd need to simulate the strappings (model it , assign key for untie/tie belt ) so that cockpit view when unstrapped and strapped is different , and make penalties for a pilot who is fighting unstrapped (like for instance , injury or added fatigue or loss of consciousness ) .



Thats not a bad idea! :)
Not sure if its technically possible and the kind of penalty, if you do maneuvres without fastened strapping is also a very unsure question, but definitly a step in the right direction.

BTW: Does anyone know, if it was possible for the pilot to loosen seatbelts after he ones fastened them? Or was it as easy to do it and vice versa as a push onto a keyboard?

[KG26_Alpha]

Thats not a bad idea! :)
Not sure if its technically possible and the kind of penalty, if you do maneuvres without fastened strapping is also a very unsure question, but definitly a step in the right direction.

BTW: Does anyone know, if it was possible for the pilot to loosen seatbelts after he ones fastened them? Or was it as easy to do it and vice versa as a push onto a keyboard?


The Sutton Harness allowed the pilot to release himself and lean forwards to make panel adjustments.

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/the-sutton-harness-on-the-spitfire.html

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Thanks for the link! :)

[SEE]

Thats not a bad idea! :)
Not sure if its technically possible and the kind of penalty, if you do maneuvres without fastened strapping is also a very unsure question, but definitly a step in the right direction.

Would that idea include players in Cockpit view using POV hatswitches to also have restrictions on Views, zoom, etc, depending on wether they were strapped in or not?

[Sven]

Would that idea include players in Cockpit view using POV hatswitches to also have restrictions on Views, zoom, etc, depending on wether they were strapped in or not?

zooming in and moving your head to the gunsight are 2 different things in IL2.
the hatswitch player will not have restrictions since he cannot move anyway, what restrictions did you have in mind?

[LoBiSoMeM]

Well... with webcam head tracking, this immersive enjoyment is a small "price of 2 pizza" investment away. ;)

Just a point that a lot of people ignore:

- TIR solutions are just webcams without IR filter, like a Wiimote...

It's up to everybody decide if will pay the price of 2 pizza for a webcam or the cost of a full service in the best restaurant of Rome...

;)

[Kubiszko]

Thats not a bad idea! :)
Not sure if its technically possible and the kind of penalty, if you do maneuvres without fastened strapping is also a very unsure question, but definitly a step in the right direction.

BTW: Does anyone know, if it was possible for the pilot to loosen seatbelts after he ones fastened them? Or was it as easy to do it and vice versa as a push onto a keyboard?


I hope that someone finally do the P-47 cockpit.There it was a lot of place.
Armor plate should be very similar like in FW.Same Tempest

[trashcanman]

The only joke here is your attitude. Take a hike loser.

Thank you for your appreciation of the right to free speech .. :rolleyes:
I am expressing my opinion and supporting it with facts.
I am sorry you do not like that.

Maybe you are the one in need of a long walk?

[trashcanman]

It seems your personal issues are far beyond the scope of this thread, or perhaps even this forum. I'm curious though, could you explain for me the significance of the "Team Blueadalos" phrase. You use it as if it's some triumph of rapier-like wit and an overpowering intellectual smackdown, so I'm hoping you can explain.

No, I am not using the phrase in the way that you have described and nor would I take such a patronising presumptive attitude to other peoples opinions.

However that seems to be a common attitude on this forum :rolleyes:

TD, in my opinion (and where I live we are still allowed to have those (England btw)) is modding IL-2 to an agenda driven by those players that only fly Blue \ LW.

Again ...my OPINION ... is that ok?

[xnomad]

Thats not a bad idea! :)
Not sure if its technically possible and the kind of penalty, if you do maneuvres without fastened strapping is also a very unsure question, but definitly a step in the right direction.

BTW: Does anyone know, if it was possible for the pilot to loosen seatbelts after he ones fastened them? Or was it as easy to do it and vice versa as a push onto a keyboard?

This is already implemented in COD. If you loosen the straps you have more freedom for your 6DOF but the penalty is your view gets slammed around in violent manoeuvres.

[KG26_Alpha]

This is already implemented in COD. If you loosen the straps you have more freedom for your 6DOF but the penalty is your view gets slammed around in violent manoeuvres.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18722

[xnomad]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18722

I don't get what you are trying to say here, you've linked back to the same thread?

If you are trying to point out that we aren't discussing COD, yes I'm aware of that. It was just that EJGr.Ost_Caspar seemed to think it was a new idea and I was just pointing out that this has already built into COD.

[robtek]

No, I am not using the phrase in the way that you have described and nor would I take such a patronising presumptive attitude to other peoples opinions.

However that seems to be a common attitude on this forum :rolleyes:

TD, in my opinion (and where I live we are still allowed to have those (England btw)) is modding IL-2 to an agenda driven by those players that only fly Blue \ LW.

Again ...my OPINION ... is that ok?

Well t-man, you know the saying about opinions?
They are like a**holes, everybody has one, and nobody wants to see the other ones! :-D
Having said that, i'd like to mention that your opinion seem very unique, as it isn't shared by anyone so far.

[Fenrir]

Thank you for your appreciation of the right to free speech .. :rolleyes:
I am expressing my opinion and supporting it with facts.
I am sorry you do not like that.

Maybe you are the one in need of a long walk?

No mate, MY opinion is that your attitude is offensive, infantile and degrading to all of us here by association, and therefore I'd rather not be seen to in anyway condone it, or you.

If it's not too much for your intellect to grasp I'll let you in on a secret; some of us fly without some ridiculous agenda and simply want this sim to be as accurate as it can be within the engine limitations. And having been in PM contact with two of the TD team and communicated via posts with 2 others, I can tell you they make damn sight more sense than you, and are considerably better mannered. But hell, guess you're the type who's got his way bullying and shouting and tirading his way through life huh? Won't cut the mustard here chum.

And facts?! I saw bugger all in the way of anything remotely factual in your post. In fact it looked remarkably like ill-informed conspiracy driven bluster to me, but hell, perhaps I'm wrong. Please do enlighten me.

[USMCICEMAN]

I'm just asking if this option could ever be considered for a future patch, if the community could forgive slight issues with graphics sometimes not being perfect?

Currently there are many switches available for options to be turned on and off in the game and I wonder if it would be possible to add a switch enabling 6-DoF, thereby giving the user the option of whether they want to choose the 6-DoF option and maybe put up with a few minor Graphic issues, or whether they leave the switch off and then keep the POV as it currently is?

I'm only putting out there the consideration that 6-DoF is possible, but there may be the occasional Graphics issue that I can appreciate the absolute purists will want, but some of us actually enjoy the experience of flying an aircraft and to have a choice for the User of the Sim to switch it on or off would be IMHO a welcome offering in a future patch?

Look here as-well to see Bearcat's post at the Ubi Forums;

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=2051024119&r=4521074119#4521074119

I just signed up for the 1c Forms after 10 years of playing IL2 just to vote for this. When all the work was done for free from Natural Point and all you needed to do is lock down the head movement in the game.... why again did it take a MOD.. " hack " to make this work and its never been official added to the game? I have 6DoF in my Racing games and they are not 1/3 as great as IL2.:rolleyes:

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Let him do, Fenrir... there is no thing more worse than being wrong and not knowing it.

@xnomad: No, I don't think the idea is that new (although I didn't know that about CoD) - anyone creative in flight sims can have it. I just pointed out, that the approach is better than the choises of the poll and is better displaying, in which direction DT thinks, when it come to solving problems.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I just signed up for the 1c Forms after 10 years of playing IL2 just to vote for this. When all the work was done for free from Natural Point and all you needed to do is lock down the head movement in the game.... why ... its never been official added to the game?

I don't know. Just guessing: because the game is old, so old, that in the beginning it wasn't planed to support 6DoF (as this was new hitech back then) and Olegs pretension was, that it now would need a huge rework of all old content at a point, when he rather wanted to switch to the next project instead. So it never happend officially. Yet.

EDIT: Welcome! :)

[kimosabi]

Hell, CoD:IL-2 will have 6DoF, and 6DoF is achieveable with some mods already so I don't really care really. I vote that DT downgrade the orginal IL-2 to NES 8bit quality. I bet the nay sayers would just thrive in a 8 bit environment. Heck, remove all support for stick use and limit the game to a two button control interface with a d-pad only and make it platform based. That should satisfy the 15%.

[Mysticpuma]

So it never happened officially. Yet.


Caspar, that is one of the most exciting things I have read in this whole thread..."Yet".

My fingers are crossed that at-least TD could offer us a switch in the settings will give the user the option to enable it.....

You may not have said much, but my wife once said "It may be small.......but it excites me!" Lol, cheers, MP

[klem]

The Sutton Harness allowed the pilot to release himself and lean forwards to make panel adjustments.

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/the-sutton-harness-on-the-spitfire.html

Thanks for that Link.

It would be interesting to know if that pilot has the release mechanism 'released' as he seems to have an impressive amount of head movement. It does seem he has he seat raised quite a lot.

I can well remember the feeling of being strapped into chipmunk cockpits when I was a lad. You felt bolted to the hard flat back of the seat and you can only move your shoulders a very small amount. I recently sat in the cockpit of a replica of the prototype Spitfire (flat canopy) and although not strapped in I set myself up hard against the seat back and only moved my head. I could see more behind than you might think and more than in IL-2 Vanilla as there is a certain amount of lateral movement in the neck, not just rotational movement and tilting the head down a little gives a little more rearward view.

Here is an extract from a book about the Spitfire by Alfred Price and contains extracts from a 1943 report of a trial of a Spitfire VIII fitted with a tear drop canopy. The report also included a comparison between the modified Mk VIII and a Tempest fitted with a tear drop canopy. Regarding the rearward view from the Spitfire the report states "This is an enormous improvement over the standard Spitfire rear view. The pilot can see quite easily round to his fin and past it, almost to the further edge of the tailplane, ie if he looks over his left shoulder he can practically see to the starboard tip of the tail. By banking slightly during weaving action, the downward view to the rear is opened up well." The report also states "The Tempest hood is ballooned and this gives much better rear vision than the narrow hood on the [modified] Spitfire. There is considerably more head freedom in the Tempest, whereas in the Spitfire the pilot has to hold his chin well in when turning round to look behind, to avoid catching his oxygen maskon the side of the hood. The Tempest armour plate is further away from the pilot's head than in the Spitfire, but is a slightly better shape as it goes as high as possible. "

I think that also makes it clear that the Tempest rear plate obscures far too much of the rear view in IL-2 and it shouldn't be necessary to loosen the Sutton harness to get a good rear view.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

The Tempest's rear armor plate model was checked by us and it appeared, that it is very much like the original was. Its one of the best cockpit models in game - not only because of the eye candy. There will NO rework of this model.

But maybe PoV, which is quite close to the plate.

[klem]

The Tempest's rear armor plate model was checked by us and it appeared, that it is very much like the original was. Its one of the best cockpit models in game - not only because of the eye candy. There will NO rework of this model.

But maybe PoV, which is quite close to the plate.

The cockpit is just fine, in fact its great, its only the rear view I have an issue with (well, apart from the lack of the later engine). See the attached photos (Tempest and very similar late Typhoon). The backplate is barely wider than the human head but in IL-2 it is beyond shoulder width.

You could move it further away in the model but if you only move the eyepoint in the existing model won't you just push our faces closer to the gunsight in forward view?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

The backplate is barely wider than the human head but in IL-2 it is beyond shoulder width.

And how did your measure this? The plate has just the correct size, thats our conclusion. Yes, the PoV would move to the front.

[Kubiszko]

And how did your measure this? The plate has just the correct size, thats our conclusion. Yes, the PoV would move to the front.


Because the board had a guard's head and shoulders, and not obstruct the view.Its logical!For what Tempest or P-47 has drip shield cockpit?For worst visibility or for beter?
I read this forum, rarely write something here and I can not believe how hard UP and Oleg's team assimilation logical arguments.Shame

http://www.hawkertempest.se/WOAnthonyBailey.htm

http://www.hawkertempest.se/JoeKendallsTempestphotos.htm

http://www.hawkertempest.se/res/Miscdrawings/cutaway.gif

http://www.hawkertempest.se/Cockpit.htm

[klem]

And how did your measure this? The plate has just the correct size, thats our conclusion. Yes, the PoV would move to the front.

By the simplest means possible. I turn my head and I see that far too much of the rear view is obstructed.

I don't know if the 3D model is accurate and the armour plate to scale compared with the rest of the cockpit or the real aircraft. I don't know if the eyepoint is correct. I don't really care because I understand that you are trying to best represent/compensate for a 6 DOF rear view on essentially a 2D screen. What I am saying is that the result is wrong. The armour plate appears to be too wide. It was essentially narrower than its height and not roughly equal in height and width as it appears to be in the current rear view.

Like Kubisko and other past posters I don't understand why you are having such a hard time accepting this.

TD has added a variety of new aircraft or variants but seem extremely reluctant to improve the rear view of one of the most important RAF aircraft or are at least reluctant to do more than consider "But maybe PoV" which if I understand you correctly will change the forward view. It seems to me that to move the eyepoint forward enough to make a more realistic rear view it would put the forward view eyepoint far too close to the panel/gunsight but only TD will know that when/if they try.

[Fafnir_6]

By the simplest means possible. I turn my head and I see that far too much of the rear view is obstructed.

I don't know if the 3D model is accurate and the armour plate to scale compared with the rest of the cockpit or the real aircraft. I don't know if the eyepoint is correct. I don't really care because I understand that you are trying to best represent/compensate for a 6 DOF rear view on essentially a 2D screen. What I am saying is that the result is wrong. The armour plate appears to be too wide. It was essentially narrower than its height and not roughly equal in height and width as it appears to be in the current rear view.

Like Kubisko and other past posters I don't understand why you are having such a hard time accepting this.

TD has added a variety of new aircraft or variants but seem extremely reluctant to improve the rear view of one of the most important RAF aircraft or are at least reluctant to do more than consider "But maybe PoV" which if I understand you correctly will change the forward view. It seems to me that to move the eyepoint forward enough to make a more realistic rear view it would put the forward view eyepoint far too close to the panel/gunsight but only TD will know that when/if they try.

Moving the PoV forward would have a similar impact on rear visibility that shrinking the backplate would, while negating the need to alter the cockpit away from its historical proportions (which are already represented in the current cockpit). The pilot's head is currently pressed up against the backplate and so visibility to the rear is compromised (and the backplate will seem very large to the pilot as a result). It seems to to me that Caspar is indicating that DT will address the Tempest rear-visibility issue in a future patch but that they will address it using PoV rather than adjusting the cockpit model. I wouldn't be too worried about the forward view in the Tempest (it should remain excellent) and you'd be surprised how little you need to move the PoV to make a meaningful difference WRT the backplate.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[Mustang]

1) You can´t feel the Gs

2) You can´t feel the aceleration

3) You can´t feel the rudder- turning right or Left

4)You can´t feel nothing

The eyes are blind , Only see in resolution 1900x1200?? -
compared with the reality is , very poor.

You only can have 6DOF vs all things have a real pilot!!



Cliffs of Dover Have 6DOF,
See videos. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:P

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Because the board had a guard's head and shoulders, and not obstruct the view.Its logical!For what Tempest or P-47 has drip shield cockpit?For worst visibility or for beter?

By the simplest means possible. I turn my head and I see that far too much of the rear view is obstructed.
...
The armour plate appears to be too wide. It was essentially narrower than its height and not roughly equal in height and width as it appears to be in the current rear view.

Like Kubisko and other past posters I don't understand why you are having such a hard time accepting this.



Guys... do you really expect us to change a cockpit part to a wrong size/proportion by will? Never!

Oh I have seen the result of the guy, who thought, that was a good idea... disgusting!

Here... this is the best grafic... made by someone else, that I found, so I don't have to do an own... compare for yourself:

http://www.preservingfidelitysquad.nl/_div/TempestMkV_ArmorPlate-01.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v189/kunac/Typhoon5V-Apreviously-X.jpg(Typhoon, but should be the same)
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1950s/Rgvn/Tempest-Cockpit.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v189/kunac/Tempest-1.jpg



The reason for the bad view in game is the problem, that is this thread about: the ugly fixed PoV. You demand (sorry I understand it that way) from us, that we should change the model instead of looking for a good solution? I really cannot go with that foulty solution. What about all other planes? Each one of them is suffering from fixed PoV! Thats a fact!

Did you fly Mc.200/202/205 series lately? Checked PoV? It had been changed with 4.10. Moved forward for 202 and much more for 205 (making them all equally). The rear view was very worse before, now its ok (still a penalty without 6DoF). Or what about Ki-43 I ? No problem with that one? Moving the PoV is the only thing we can consider as an approach to make the resampling better to the real thing, but changing the model... no.

[Kubiszko]

Guys... do you really expect us to change a cockpit part to a wrong size/proportion by will? Never!

Oh I have seen the result of the guy, who thought, that was a good idea... disgusting!

Here... this is the best grafic... made by someone else, that I found, so I don't have to do an own... compare for yourself:

http://www.preservingfidelitysquad.nl/_div/TempestMkV_ArmorPlate-01.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v189/kunac/Typhoon5V-Apreviously-X.jpg(Typhoon, but should be the same)
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1950s/Rgvn/Tempest-Cockpit.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v189/kunac/Tempest-1.jpg



The reason for the bad view in game is the problem, that is this thread about: the ugly fixed PoV. You demand (sorry I understand it that way) from us, that we should change the model instead of looking for a good solution? I really cannot go with that foulty solution. What about all other planes? Each one of them is suffering from fixed PoV! Thats a fact!

Did you fly Mc.200/202/205 series lately? Checked PoV? It had been changed with 4.10. Moved forward for 202 and much more for 205 (making them all equally). The rear view was very worse before, now its ok (still a penalty without 6DoF). Or what about Ki-43 I ? No problem with that one? Moving the PoV is the only thing we can consider as an approach to make the resampling better to the real thing, but changing the model... no.

Maybe time for major changes and not deal with "bullshit".May is time to consider the more realistic DM(hispano,browning) is too weak,instead of doing more and more bombs are not known to have been used.
You are dealing with this and in your hands is a refreshing this not very popular old game.
I have a hunch that clifs of dover will have not more to offer than il2 1946 for long time.Show what U got.

I believe in you

[klem]

Guys... do you really expect us to change a cockpit part to a wrong size/proportion by will? Never!
.........................
Oh I have seen the result of the guy, who thought, that was a good idea... disgusting!
.........................

The reason for the bad view in game is the problem, that is this thread about: the ugly fixed PoV. You demand (sorry I understand it that way) from us, that we should change the model instead of looking for a good solution? I really cannot go with that foulty solution. What about all other planes? Each one of them is suffering from fixed PoV! Thats a fact!


Caspar, I am not demanding anything. I am asking TD to fix something that is long overdue. This question of the Tempest backplate has been rumbling along since the Tempest was introduced.

I am not demanding that you change the model if there is another way. I only suggested that as a possible way to solve the problem because you said the cockpit was correct so I assumed there was some other kind of visual/scaling issue which might require a 'cheat' to overcome it. Why else would the problem not have been addressed before?

If the geometry of the cockpit is correct, if you are confident that moving the eyepoint will solve the problem without making the other views ridiculous I don't understand why such a simple change, presumably known for some time, to such an important aircraft has not been done before and is still only now "maybe move POV".

I have seen the mods compromise and I agree it is much too far the other way but at least its an attempt to fix it. Like the argument over the 6 DOF question causing minor graphics glitches, the value of an imperfect but improved and more realistic view far outweighs the penalty of a perfectly wrong view but I agree the mod goes too far. We used to have a saying for achieving objectives, "almost right rather than precisely wrong"

Fafnir_6
I do understand all that, I move eyepoints in FSX, but I assumed there was a more complex problem because such a simple solution has not been implemented before now.

[Fafnir_6]

I haven't actually tried the Macchis since 4.10 came out. I'll check them out when I get home from work today :). PoV in the C.200 was awesome, if the C.202/205 are like that now, it is a very good thing.

@Klem: It is entirely possible that the Tempest hasn't been looked at (officially) because of 1C's concentration on CoD prior to DT taking charge of IL-2 updates and DT's heavy workload since. The important thing is that your request is in now and Caspar has implied that they will look into it. I suppose comparing the 4.09 and 4.10 Macchi C.202/205 would be a good demonstration of what he is proposing. As stated above, I haven't looked into it myself, but it should prove interesting. Multiple IL-2 installs are a wonderful thing.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

If the geometry of the cockpit is correct, if you are confident that moving the eyepoint will solve the problem without making the other views ridiculous I don't understand why such a simple change, presumably known for some time, to such an important aircraft has not been done before and is still only now "maybe move POV".

Because it is all YOUR oppinion about the plane and the problem, that this makes it so urgent for you.
And because there is so much else to do for us. And for me, this discussion is rather new (playing for almost 11 years even modding is still young to me).

OK, I'll take it as a request for taking a look at the rather bad rear view of the Tempest and other planes.

[klem]

Because it is all YOUR oppinion about the plane and the problem, that this makes it so urgent for you.
And because there is so much else to do for us. And for me, this discussion is rather new (playing for almost 11 years even modding is still young to me).

OK, I'll take it as a request for taking a look at the rather bad rear view of the Tempest and other planes.

Thank you Caspar.

btw it is not suddenly urgent for me and not only my opinion, it has been urgent for Tempest flyers for a very long time until we gave up asking.

Thank you again for taking on the request.

[trashcanman]

No mate, MY opinion is that your attitude is offensive, infantile and degrading to all of us here by association, and therefore I'd rather not be seen to in anyway condone it, or you.

If it's not too much for your intellect to grasp I'll let you in on a secret; some of us fly without some ridiculous agenda and simply want this sim to be as accurate as it can be within the engine limitations. And having been in PM contact with two of the TD team and communicated via posts with 2 others, I can tell you they make damn sight more sense than you, and are considerably better mannered. But hell, guess you're the type who's got his way bullying and shouting and tirading his way through life huh? Won't cut the mustard here chum.

And facts?! I saw bugger all in the way of anything remotely factual in your post. In fact it looked remarkably like ill-informed conspiracy driven bluster to me, but hell, perhaps I'm wrong. Please do enlighten me.

The Fw190 gunsight bar has been removed - FACT
The justification for this is that it has been calculated due to refraction of light in photographs from external views of the cockpit ... yes I know it sounds crazy but 2 TD members have told me that - FACT

For the record I personally think that the Fw190 gunsight in unmodded IL-2 is probably wrong.

Now, let us look at the P-47 razorback ....

This is not my research however I feel it is solid (sorry for expressing my opinion again :rolleyes:) http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5351020214/p/1

And yet TD choose to not use their magic on the Razorback Jug ....??? - FACT
I have asked TD people this (oh yes, you aren't the only one!) and they use the NG excuse .... :confused: - FACT

This is my perception. I am sorry if my views offend you. Personal insults do not bother me btw so please feel free to continue :)

[trashcanman]

Well t-man, you know the saying about opinions?
They are like a**holes, everybody has one, and nobody wants to see the other ones! :-D
Having said that, i'd like to mention that your opinion seem very unique, as it isn't shared by anyone so far.

Just because you and the people you associate with don't share my views, that does not necessarily make them wrong ;)

The fact that you resort to that particular orafice in your analogy tells me a lot about the lifestyle choice you have made.
I make no judgement on that and wish you good luck, good health and happiness in your relationships :)

[Bearcat]

Caspar, that is one of the most exciting things I have read in this whole thread..."Yet".

My fingers are crossed that at-least TD could offer us a switch in the settings will give the user the option to enable it.....

You may not have said much, but my wife once said "It may be small.......but it excites me!" Lol, cheers, MP

Same here... INMO it would be great.. even if it was made tighter.. as in not quite the same range of 6DoF as the mods.. but it needs to be in there. As I previously stated... for me a lot of this makes sense .. adding 6DoF and some of the other functional mods.. and maybe a few variants of AC.. because at the end of the day this sim is going into it's golden years.. but it will still be getting new users I think for at least the next 1-3 years.. and then it will gradually die down.. but the final official version of this sim needs to be definitive.. and it can be just that.. and they wouldn't even have to rework a lot of the pits.. This is is a great product thathas captured the minds and more importantly time and money of grown men... for some a decade.. that says a lot.. and as much as I have to admit... I like a lot of the mods.. and I believe that they have shown us what it possible.. but this is still Oleg's sim.. He created it with 1C and it should be defined by them.. as long as some of the for lack of a better term "goodness" that is in mods is not in the official version when it could easily be.. (my thinking is ... if an unauthorized group can do it then the authors should be able to "do it+".. I don't expect to see every single mod in this sim.. and they shouldn't be... but it wouldn't take every mod to make more people choose the stock sim over the modded one... or at least use it more than they do now..

I hope that some of the points raised in this thread become food for thought to Oleg & TD .... This is till the best WWII combat flight sim on the market.. and truth be told even after CoD is released it will still be contending with it's older brother IL2... and the two of them have nothing runnign a close second.. there are others in the race.. but pound fore pound they don't even come close..

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

And yet TD choose to not use their magic on the Razorback Jug ....??? - FACT
I have asked TD people this (oh yes, you aren't the only one!) and they use the NG excuse .... :confused: - FACT

Republic Aviation (later Fairchild) has nothing to do with NG. I doubt, what you say. Even more I do not know about any request to DT of that topic.

Thanks for the link anyway.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

BTW: 190 vs 37 ... My oppinion is, that the orientation should not be to please the 85%, but to convince the 15% instead. Then the task is done.

[Mysticpuma]

"BTW: 190 vs 37 ... My opinion is, that the orientation should not be to please the 85%, but to convince the 15% instead. Then the task is done. "

Hi Caspar, interesting the way you put that, but look back earlier and the percentage was only 80. Surely the vote is going the correct way?

I know it seems there have been a couple of attempts to drag this one off-topic, and thanks to those of you who dragged it back.

This is a request that if the Poll is considered, that the OPTION of switching 6-DoF is given to the Users of the Sim, not that you will be enforced to use it if you don't want to!!

As has been put before, it is up to the user of the Sim to decide what hardware they invest in. I have a Modded Cougar, Track IR and Rudder Pedals. I don't 'need' them, but I wanted to invest in my hobby and make my experience online and offline as immersive as possible.

Some people don't use a stick, some don't use tracking devices but to say that everyone cannot have 6-DoF because not all of us have Tracking devices is rather like saying "I ride a push-bike so you can't have petrol for your car!" If you invest in the Hardware, surely it would be nice to offer the Individual the 'switchable' Option of whether they can use it or decide to leave it switched off?

What I am requesting is that a switch be added to enable or disable 6-DoF and for the User to decide which they prefer.

Look, some people may not like the 6-DoF to be active once they have tried it.......but they can then (if there was an optional switch) turn it off?

It's like the argument (in a broad sense) of watching Violence on TV. No-one says you have to watch it....that's what the switch is for.

All I'm requesting is a switch, nothing more, nothing less!

(Then after that get on to adding updated p-51's ;) )

Cheers, MP

[Fafnir_6]

Hello all,

Just to lay the PoV discussion to rest, I submit the following pictures both taken using the un-zoomed view in the Macchi C.205, with keypad-1 pressed (for rear port-side view). The comparison is of the 4.09 Macchi versus the 4.10 Macchi and shows the effect of the different PoV settings from one patch to the next (as described in the 4.10 readme and by Caspar earlier in this thread). Note that the headrest in the 4.09 Macchi takes up ~40% of the screen area, while the it only takes up ~20% in 4.10. Forward visiblity is affected by the changes, as one would expect, but I don't feel that it is any worse in the new patch (it may actually be better--I haven't fought enough in the Macchi to be able to speak with authority). You can see the entire gunsight reticle in the 4.10 Macchi (the edges of it are often clipped in the distant gunsight of the 4.09 C.205)...It's almost as though the gunsight was supposed to be viewed from the closer distance ;)...Thanks DT for that fix. In any case, I think this is the natural way to deal with the Tempest's visibility issues.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

P.S. This post is not intended to re-divert this thread away from 6DoF discussions but merely to provide closure to those worried about the Tempest...I will say no more about the matter.

[klem]

.................
I know it seems there have been a couple of attempts to drag this one off-topic, and thanks to those of you who dragged it back.
.................

Probably guilty, sorry, but the Tempest rear view question is even relevant in 6DOF.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

All I'm requesting is a switch, nothing more, nothing less!

Cheers, MP

You mean, even if someone has a tracking device, he should be able to choose between 4DoF and 6DoF? Maybe expanding the conf.ini entry:

[rts]
UseTIR = 0,1,2 (off, 4DoF, 6DoF)

Not sure, if its possible, but will be considered if the time has come. :)

[SEE]

Wether in 2DOF or 6DOF, the internal POV can be changed for rearward view advantage by simply 'toggling gunsights' in normal view and having this assigned to your hatswitch for example. There are numerous view controls that can be used for 'view' advantage in both 2DOF and 6DOF.

Interestingly, the ability to enable/disable any axis during flight is a feature included in Freetrack (and extremely useful) but why add axis options in Config when you can do that in your HT software interface?

[Bearcat]

I just have a key set for > FOV and < FOV on a MACRO with a .060 repeat.. It is almost as smooth as having it on a slider.. and does the job very nicely.

[KG26_Alpha]

6DoF

Its simply unrealistic as its in its present form, you cannot move around that much in a fighter aircraft when strapped in, you are not wearing an inertia belting system in these aircraft you simply cannot move as given by 6DoF.
Any forward movement for gun sights was done by seat adjustment not the pilot leaning forwards.

Zooming forwards and unplucking your eyeballs from your skull and placing them on the canopy, rotating your head almost 180 degrees is worse than the present viewing system.




.




That is a bogus argument.

At best.

Zoom is and always has been a feature of this sim.. and actually every sim over the past 12 years or so, at least everyone I have flown.. from the moment that macros were possible it was possible to have zoom on a simulated slider... even though zoom is now on a slider.. my zoom is still the way it has been.. with a macro, set at .002 second intervals .. and you can say what misinformed mumbo jumbo you want.. but if you try to fly and fight zoomed in you will die a quick virtual death... Zoom definitely has it's place in any sim.. and that, because it is part of the stock sim and always has been.. even before TIR came out, renders it a non issue.







What are you talking about misinformed mumbo jumbo ?


Your opinion is the only opinion allowed here ?

If you ever flew in a high performance aircraft you would realise what you are requesting is fantasy.

At the extreme end of the scale

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8i04jBLI5I&feature=related

At the lower/fun end of the scale

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w91GTIWTzw&feature=related

The current UPv2.01 6DoF is not realistic, the current V4.10 viewing system is not realistic, any new viewing system work should be done from this point,
and take into consideration the integrity of the cockpits limitations regarding the poly counts allowed back then.

I would rather see the work/time spent else where by DT.

IMHO :)

.

[SEE]

IL1946 embraces difficulty levels. Oleg has frequently stated that he wanted his work to be enjoyed by all.

If 'viewing Realism' is one of the primary requirements before any consideration for the implementation of 6DOF into stock (and applies to 2DOF, fixed pov with regards swivelling to 6) then it must be part of the difficulty options and integrate fully with all other viewing features such as Zoom, FOV, gunsights, etc to ensure a common experience with that 'difficulty' enabled with or without HT. This would be an overwhelming technical challenge (added to resolving the 'glitches') - compromises would have to be made that I am unsure TD and 'purists' would be prepared to accept.

[Fafnir_6]

You mean, even if someone has a tracking device, he should be able to choose between 4DoF and 6DoF? Maybe expanding the conf.ini entry:

[rts]
UseTIR = 0,1,2 (off, 4DoF, 6DoF)

Not sure, if its possible, but will be considered if the time has come. :)

Cool!:cool:

Fafnir_6

[arthursmedley]

I would rather see the work/time spent else where by DT.

IMHO :)

.

Fair enough! However, 85% of respondents to this poll would seem to disagree with you.

[kimosabi]

BTW: 190 vs 37 ... My oppinion is, that the orientation should not be to please the 85%, but to convince the 15% instead. Then the task is done.

You can't convince all the nay sayers. Some of them are too pigheaded to be objective.

Look at KG26's last reply to Bearcat for example. He's so set on convincing Bearcat that the pilot is strapped down too tight for 6DoF(although much harder strapped than WW2 pilots were but ok), that he don't see the obvious 6DoF action going on in those very same vids. Sideways head tilt and sideways movement(not rotating) is part of 6DoF.

[MD_Titus]

Probably guilty, sorry, but the Tempest rear view question is even relevant in 6DOF.

only in terms of the point of view. the armour plate is fine.

reading comprehension levels round here are appalling.

[KG26_Alpha]

You can't convince all the nay sayers. Some of them are too pigheaded to be objective.

Look at KG26's last reply to Bearcat for example. He's so set on convincing Bearcat that the pilot is strapped down too tight for 6DoF(although much harder strapped than WW2 pilots were but ok), that he don't see the obvious 6DoF action going on in those very same vids. Sideways head tilt and sideways movement(not rotating) is part of 6DoF.


This is the problem if you don't know what its like to be strapped in a cockpit, voting here for DT to put 6DoF into IL2 1946 thinking its a normal viewing system when its not, there needs to be a better system just not 6DoF as it is at present.
I know what its like to be thrown around in an aircraft pulling G's and I put the vids up to show that head movements possible but not the way 6DoF lets you look around at present.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything,
I cant if they already have made their mind up,
all I'm trying to get across is the ridiculous way some think 6DoF should be compared to how it really is.
Other forum members have posting in this thread from their real life experiences also,
and these seem to have been ignored as those that want 6DoF simply go blind to those that really know.


tolwyn wrote
Unfortunately the answers to this poll are so biased, it's ridiculous.

A simple Yes or No would have been better than introducing the poll-authors bias.

I think I'd like my 2¢ here in this thread.

I voted no.
For a few reasons, but I'll focus on one that gets overlooked.

I've been strapped in an aerobatic plane (a Citabria, to be precise). I couldn't lean forward if I wanted to. So, my head was "stuck to a stick, thank you very much." I had some limited "wiggle room" but not much.

So, 6DOF is a gimmick in a WW2 game, since you'd be strapped so damn tight into your plane you wouldn't be able to do what you guys would like to do with 6DOF enabled.

And you don't get to have it both ways. If you loosened your straps (virtually) to have enabled that freedom, you would need to face the consequences of a severe g-loaded maneuver not being properly strapped in.

Wanna add that?

I have a TrackIR. I've had a TrackIR since 2003 or 2004.
But in my opinion, to model 6DOF in a way that would be realistic in the paradigm of being strapped into a cockpit wouldn't make many if any of you happy

plus 1

i flew firefly aerobatics up to a mere 4.5g, loose straps would not have been much fun, and poll wording certainly seems bias although doubt it really had much influance


+2

I fly ULM every sunday with my uncle except when wheather is bad , we are always strapped with the cross shaped belt , and even though you can look around you , it's quite difficult to look on your 6 oclock for prolonged period without hurting your neck when you are manoeuvering , your back is more or less stuck to the seat and there is no way to have the kind of freedom of view you have with 6dof unless you untie your belt or loosen it .

now that's only a ridiculously light and very slow plane compared to the 1000hp monsters we get to fly in the sim , i can easily guess that with a WWII pilot suit + oxygen mask/helmet/googles + stress/fatigue+ much tighter strapping +much faster plane pulling lot of G's = difficult to look behind you during manoeuvers or combat , even more difficult to get the kind of view angles you get with 6dof

If you implement 6DOF in IL-2 , maybe a suggestion would be to enable it ONLY when the pilot untie his belt/straps , fly level at low speed without pulling G's ...

But to achieve that , you'd need to simulate the strappings (model it , assign key for untie/tie belt ) so that cockpit view when unstrapped and strapped is different , and make penalties for a pilot who is fighting unstrapped (like for instance , injury or added fatigue or loss of consciousness ) .

So I'm not against 6DOF , but i think it should be implemented in conjunction with the belt/strappings , otherwise it would feel like you are a terminator un-strapped flying his plane in a bubble immune to gravity .

Thanks for that Link.

It would be interesting to know if that pilot has the release mechanism 'released' as he seems to have an impressive amount of head movement. It does seem he has he seat raised quite a lot.

I can well remember the feeling of being strapped into chipmunk cockpits when I was a lad. You felt bolted to the hard flat back of the seat and you can only move your shoulders a very small amount. I recently sat in the cockpit of a replica of the prototype Spitfire (flat canopy) and although not strapped in I set myself up hard against the seat back and only moved my head. I could see more behind than you might think and more than in IL-2 Vanilla as there is a certain amount of lateral movement in the neck, not just rotational movement and tilting the head down a little gives a little more rearward view.

Here is an extract from a book about the Spitfire by Alfred Price and contains extracts from a 1943 report of a trial of a Spitfire VIII fitted with a tear drop canopy. The report also included a comparison between the modified Mk VIII and a Tempest fitted with a tear drop canopy. Regarding the rearward view from the Spitfire the report states "This is an enormous improvement over the standard Spitfire rear view. The pilot can see quite easily round to his fin and past it, almost to the further edge of the tailplane, ie if he looks over his left shoulder he can practically see to the starboard tip of the tail. By banking slightly during weaving action, the downward view to the rear is opened up well." The report also states "The Tempest hood is ballooned and this gives much better rear vision than the narrow hood on the [modified] Spitfire. There is considerably more head freedom in the Tempest, whereas in the Spitfire the pilot has to hold his chin well in when turning round to look behind, to avoid catching his oxygen maskon the side of the hood. The Tempest armour plate is further away from the pilot's head than in the Spitfire, but is a slightly better shape as it goes as high as possible. "

I think that also makes it clear that the Tempest rear plate obscures far too much of the rear view in IL-2 and it shouldn't be necessary to loosen the Sutton harness to get a good rear view.


Simply bunging in 6DoF is wrong :)
.

[kimosabi]

What is wrong here is that you guys focus way too much on how a pilot is strapped in his seat instead of looking at actual pilot head movements.

[KG26_Alpha]

only in terms of the point of view. the armour plate is fine.

reading comprehension levels round here are appalling.

Agreed :)

[robtek]

......
Simply bunging in 6DoF is wrong :)
.

Might be, but not as wrong as a head on a stick! :-D :-D :-D

[kimosabi]

The current UPv2.01 6DoF is not realistic, the current V4.10 viewing system is not realistic, any new viewing system work should be done from this point,
and take into consideration the integrity of the cockpits limitations regarding the poly counts allowed back then.

I would rather see the work/time spent else where by DT.

IMHO :)

.

Your agenda is clear and it explains the stubbornness. I assume you meant my reading comprehension? You're in for a wedgie hombre. :)

[EvilJoven]

The simple fact that a lot of planes have insturments that are obscured by the flight stick is enough to indicate that real pilots had at least some lateral movement. I don't understand the reluctance to accept that fact.

Try flying a plane without the speedbar when both compasses and the turn/slip indicator are obscured by a flightstick.

[Tolwyn]

Fair enough! However, 85% of respondents to this poll would seem to disagree with you.

That's because they aren't pilots.
If you want realism, listen to me. If you want arcade... well, then...

My original caveat is clear and still accurate.

To INVOKE 6DOF in a *realistic manner* would not make any of you happy. Even I agree the current restriction is just as inaccurate, however, to enable 6DOF like you see in the mods is grossly MORE inaccurate.

You'd need to move about 27-33% to 6DOF. But that would be about it.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

The simple fact that a lot of planes have insturments that are obscured by the flight stick is enough to indicate that real pilots had at least some lateral movement. I don't understand the reluctance to accept that fact.

Noone is questioning that. :(

[Bearcat]

What are you talking about misinformed mumbo jumbo ?


Your opinion is the only opinion allowed here ?
If you ever flew in a high performance aircraft you would realise what you are requesting is fantasy.
At the extreme end of the scale

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8i04jBLI5I&feature=related

At the lower/fun end of the scale

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w91GTIWTzw&feature=related

The current UPv2.01 6DoF is not realistic, the current V4.10 viewing system is not realistic, any new viewing system work should be done from this point,
and take into consideration the integrity of the cockpits limitations regarding the poly counts allowed back then.

I would rather see the work/time spent else where by DT.

IMHO :)

.

???

Flying a combat aircraft from my desk looking through a 24" diagonal box is not realistic either.. I am not saying that 6DoF should be implemented exactly as it is in the mod packs.... I never said that but it should be implemented.. and it wouldn't be too much work if it were tightened up some .. the work has already been done.. changing a few numbers in the code is not too hard for these guys.. Considering how many people use TIR3 and above in this sim and the fact that it is possible.. to not do it IMO is a mistake. and of course my opinion is far from the only one allowed here.. but it is shared by many..

That's because they aren't pilots.
If you want realism, listen to me. If you want arcade... well, then...
My original caveat is clear and still accurate.
To INVOKE 6DOF in a *realistic manner* would not make any of you happy. Even I agree the current restriction is just as inaccurate, however, to enable 6DOF like you see in the mods is grossly MORE inaccurate.
You'd need to move about 27-33% to 6DOF. But that would be about it.

Even that would be better than what is in the stock sim now.. and it is doable.

[BadAim]

I'm not sure that I really want to get into this, but as a fan of 6Dof I suppose I'll risk it......

Isn't the whole argument that 6Dof isn't perfect so it's no good, kinda throwing the baby out with the bathwater? The system in use now is just as wrong, (granted, it was the best we had when Il2 was developed) and 85% of the respondents seem to agree that the 6Dof that is so far available is the better choice.

In the interest of reason I'd be more than happy if DT were to implement a somewhat more restrictive version of 6Dof, but if it isn't practical within the confines of IL2's code (and DT's other constraints) the version that is available now is better than what we've got IMO (and quite a few others).

[Red Dragon-DK]

Well said BadAim.
If it was done so it work like the one in microsoft flight simulator X I would say it was close to spot on.

[Falke]

Come one, come all, see the mighty fighter pilots lean forward, lean left, lean right and twist to look back... tight straps and all! ... step right this way....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCrKDz8hH5E

(See 2 minutes into video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hgboNY1KhA&feature=player_detailpage

[klem]

Do I detect movement here? Perhaps even a degree of agreement?

"6DOF has a place in IL-2 but with restricted movement and not as implemented by UP"

"Some 4.10 rear views are basically not too good and need looking at"

No-one wants mickey mouse solutions. In fact what most posters here want is something closer to reality than we have even if its not as "helpful" as some UP solutions. Limited 6DOF may not give a huge advantage in viewing but it will add to the individual aircraft capabilities and greatly improve the immersion over the head fixed in a frame.

Wouldn't it be better for TD to focus on clearing some of these long standing issues rather than continue to expand the game including, and possibly extending, the existing faults?

This isn't a TD bashing excercise, they are doing great work, it is perhaps a question of TD priorities.

When CoD comes out many of us in the flight simming community will be looking at, among others, CoD, IL-2 vanilla, IL-2 UP, FSX, X-Plane (yes I know FSX and X-Plane 6DOF has complete freedom of body movement) and only one of those doesn't have 6DOF. We know why, IL-2 was a leading edge game 10 years ago and still is to some extent but the views aspect hasn't been brought up to date. It will be hard to persuade many many people to go back to IL-2 vanilla after CoD with its 6 DOF (even those not too interested in it now that haven't tried it), I think they are far more likely to consign vanilla to history and go to UP. What will further TD work be worth then? Will many people be interested in new developments then in IL-2 without 6DOF?

[Silverback]

I say please put 6 DOF in and if for some reason the player doesn't like it, the player can turn it off. No problem. Thank you

[Bearcat]

Do I detect movement here? Perhaps even a degree of agreement?

"6DOF has a place in IL-2 but with restricted movement and not as implemented by UP"

"Some 4.10 rear views are basically not too good and need looking at"

No-one wants mickey mouse solutions. In fact what most posters here want is something closer to reality than we have even if its not as "helpful" as some UP solutions. Limited 6DOF may not give a huge advantage in viewing but it will add to the individual aircraft capabilities and greatly improve the immersion over the head fixed in a frame.

Wouldn't it be better for TD to focus on clearing some of these long standing issues rather than continue to expand the game including, and possibly extending, the existing faults?

This isn't a TD bashing excercise, they are doing great work, it is perhaps a question of TD priorities.

When CoD comes out many of us in the flight simming community will be looking at, among others, CoD, IL-2 vanilla, IL-2 UP, FSX, X-Plane (yes I know FSX and X-Plane 6DOF has complete freedom of body movement) and only one of those doesn't have 6DOF. We know why, IL-2 was a leading edge game 10 years ago and still is to some extent but the views aspect hasn't been brought up to date. It will be hard to persuade many many people to go back to IL-2 vanilla after CoD with its 6 DOF (even those not too interested in it now that haven't tried it), I think they are far more likely to consign vanilla to history and go to UP. What will further TD work be worth then? Will many people be interested in new developments then in IL-2 without 6DOF?

Precisely...........

[arthursmedley]

I say please put 6 DOF in and if for some reason the player doesn't like it, the player can turn it off. No problem. Thank you

Exactly. In my opinion this is not about 'realism.' Oleg gave us a pause button. How 'real' is that? This is about immersion in the sim. I also think this would be a great opportunity to re-unite the community behind TD and the 'official' version. How many people have posted here and over in the Ubi forum thread that the ability to use 6DoF was their main reason for using mods? For myself, if this were implemented in the vanilla version then I'd have to take a long hard look whether it was worth continuing with the multiple installs, the switchers, having to wait for other squad members to catch up with the latest version of this, that and the other..................................

[Red Dragon-DK]

Reson for using mods is basig the SOUNDS and 6DOF + been able to fly heavy bombers like the B17 Liberater and many other planes. It allso provide a lot of good looking things that make it very enjoyable to fly. I dont belive it is a stand up behind DT or against them or modders. I think they both have the right to be here. It just provide a lot more of what I like and wouldent be without. DT is doing a great job, and so are the modders. The very best thing that cut happent was they starting work together. Its not a religion was. Not in my book after all. Think how far it cut go? And I would still bye the new COD when comes out. But I allso like this a lot.

[MD_Titus]

a small range of side to side movement, so that you can see round the stick to the instrument panel, would be useful. however the range of movement in the mod 6dof is far too extreme, as it would see you bouncing your skull off the sides of the canopy.

i fly with the 6dof mod, but i have limited the side to side movement and only really use the tilt aspect of it with regularity.

on the tempest pov, it would seem that it's less of a head on a stick, more eyeball on a stick, as the straight down view is roughly where the pilot's spine would be. shifting it forward 10cm or so would seem about right. there's a few other planes with similar views. not sure if an arc could be modelled into the viewing angle, to simulate tipping head forward rather than rotating the stick-eyeball view down.

[SEE]

.

i fly with the 6dof mod, but i have limited the side to side movement and only really use the tilt aspect of it with regularity.



Same here, I don't like excessive tilt or side movement and I suspect a lot of others don't either. I have less tilt than is actually possible in real movement. I disable XY sidemovement quite frequently. Some of the objections seem to be focussed on rearview ability which is exactly the same in both 6DOF and 2DOF and fixed views :confused:

[JG53Frankyboy]

i would suggest, let TD work.. i belive they are on it :D

BUT, can you imagine what will happen as soon the MOD packs are avaialble for 4.10.1......... few will care anymore than i guess.

[Bearcat]

Until 4.12...

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

4.11 :)

[Bearcat]

Yeah... 4.11... which will be coming out a lot sooner than 4.10 did right?

[Bearcat]

It's funny.. the numbers in this poll mirror the one at UBI pretty closely.. even though only 64 people took that poll. I wonder how many of them posted in this one as well..

Same poll @ UBI (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2051024119)

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Yeah... 4.11... which will be coming out a lot sooner than 4.10 did right?

No, it cannot be sooner than 4.10 - as 4.10 is already out! :grin::grin::grin:

Seriously, we care now for shorter delivery times and smaller patches.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Same poll @ UBI (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2051024119)

Even more funny, I could vote twice there. Seems to be connected to IP, not user. :confused:

[klem]

No, it cannot be sooner than 4.10 - as 4.10 is already out! :grin::grin::grin:

Seriously, we care now for shorter delivery times and smaller patches.

Take your time Caspar, that 6DOF will need to be right :wink:

[Bearcat]

No, it cannot be sooner than 4.10 - as 4.10 is already out! :grin::grin::grin:

Seriously, we care now for shorter delivery times and smaller patches.

You know what I mean...

That's a good thing...

[Tolwyn]

My "no" vote did have a caveat, and you've hit it.

There is certainly a benefit for a "realistic" 6DOF in the game. To ignore it is exactly throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It would have to be limited (and frankly, I think the "limitations" or, what we call in the business gimbal restrictions would turn a gimmicky thing into a GREAT thing).

My point was that to make it realistic would still not make the majority happy.


I'm not sure that I really want to get into this, but as a fan of 6Dof I suppose I'll risk it......

Isn't the whole argument that 6Dof isn't perfect so it's no good, kinda throwing the baby out with the bathwater? The system in use now is just as wrong, (granted, it was the best we had when Il2 was developed) and 85% of the respondents seem to agree that the 6Dof that is so far available is the better choice.

In the interest of reason I'd be more than happy if DT were to implement a somewhat more restrictive version of 6Dof, but if it isn't practical within the confines of IL2's code (and DT's other constraints) the version that is available now is better than what we've got IMO (and quite a few others).

[BadAim]

But do you really think that 6DOF as it's implemented already is really more unrealistic than the stock 2Dof? I mean the simple fact is that you can move your head around enough to see around canopy bracing in a real plane, so is perhaps being able to move around too much any more unrealistic than not at all?

Here is my point: were not going to get a perfect implementation in IL2. Are we going to settle for the best we can get, or refuse anything because we can't get exactly what we want?

And I don't think that most people would be any more unhappy with a slightly more restrictive 6DOF than those who see a "cheater" around every corner would be with having it at all.

I guess, I'm just saying that I don't believe that the argument is black and white. Were not talking about the difference between right and wrong here, but the best of whatever compromise we can get.

[Mysticpuma]

Fruitbat posted a great example of 6 DoF from his Youtube channel. It shows just what is possible with it enabled:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKD2a9xDPWc

[JG53Harti]

It shows just what is possible with it enabled:



It shows only that the guy has trouble to shoot down a enemy ;)

[JAMF]

Fruitbat posted a great example of 6 DoF from his Youtube channel. It shows just what is possible with it enabled:
Well that was 4DoF, maybe 5 DoF tops. He didn't use the vertical head position axis much. Then again, there aren't that many obstructions that required it. ;)

[kimosabi]

It shows only that the guy has trouble to shoot down a enemy ;)

Just go ahead and try getting a quick kill on Toad. I dare you. ;)

[fruitbat]

lol.

yup i have real trouble shooting down enemies....:rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzT6eKV4pzo

for the record, the vid that Mysticpuma linked I used 5dof a lot for sure, quite often in it i moved a little bit closer in to see around the cockpit framing, but JAMF is right, i didn't use the vertical head position really, but only because i didn't need to in that plane. Bit different in something like a p38 though....

[LoBiSoMeM]

Ouch! Labels and cartoon smoke! Lol!

[fruitbat]

Ouch! Labels and cartoon smoke! Lol!

there only on for the vids sake.

if you can show me a way to get better (less) compression on youtube so that planes don't disappear on vids uploaded to it and stay as visible as on my original fraps rip, I'm all for turning them off.

thought not.

[Erkki]

Against the AI the 6DOF is perfectly OK. :) As is Fruitbat's flying. ;)

[kimosabi]

Although I'm not sure sometimes, Toad is 100% human.

[Erkki]

Although I'm not sure sometimes, Toad is 100% human.

He makes some needless moves... And some that dont work against real people that well. Everyone makes mistakes.

[fruitbat]

To be fair to TOAD, that was one of probably over 50 tracks i have of us going 1 on 1, as we enjoy sparring with each other 1v1, same plane fuel etc....

It was certainly not the best flying he's ever done, nor myself.

I've got a track somewhere, of us both running out of fuel (started with 25%) without either of us getting a shot on each other, but 17mins is not an ideal youtube watch, great fight and one of my favourites though....

some fights are over in seconds, so.....

as you say Erkki everyone makes mistakes, well apart from some of the snobs on this forum (not aimed at you erkki) who are obviously perfect, lol.

the vid did however show 6dof very well, hence the posting in this thread, it wasn't suppose to be an example of how i'm the best pilot in the world......

[kimosabi]

I was being humorous about Toad, Erkki. I was hoping that noone jumped on it the wrong way but voila. I'll show you BFM's biatch!

[Bearcat]

It shows only that the guy has trouble to shoot down a enemy ;)

Which is a good point... even if somewhat misapplied in this case.. Having 6DoF or competing against someone that has it when you don't is not a cut & dried issue.. If a person is not a good pilot or competing a against a better one having 6DoF is not an end all answer to victory, which is sometimes why I think so many people who either can't afford or are just too cheap to buy a TIR think.. (because let's face it.. if TIR was $50 just about everyone else would have one.. as it is now.. just about everyone has one... or some free equvivalent)

Against the AI the 6DOF is perfectly OK. :) As is Fruitbat's flying. ;)

Even against a live pilot 6DoF is fine...

[Erkki]

as you say Erkki everyone makes mistakes, well apart from some of the snobs on this forum (not aimed at you erkki) who are obviously perfect, lol.

the vid did however show 6dof very well, hence the posting in this thread, it wasn't suppose to be an example of how i'm the best pilot in the world......

I know! Thats why I don't upload my tracks and the utub vids have the entertainment only disclaimer, too many mistakes! How couldn't I see that La-5?!? :) The moment I start thinking this game has nothing to teach anymore I might as well quit as theres little left to enjoy.

[Mysticpuma]

Well, having read through all the posts, it seems that if opinion is listened to, there may be a chance of seeing this in a future patch?

Looking at the Poll result and seeing it has stayed at a steady 85%, I hope that TD will at-least consider listening to popular opinion?

Currently we are able to turn our heads to look behind and with 5-DoF it would be possible to lean left/right a little and if possible the 6-DoF gives a slight upward movement too.

If 6-DoF is really a step too-far, maybe 5-DoF would be a compromise that could be considered?

I am however running this thread and Poll for 6-DoF and 85% of respondents have said they would love to have the option to switch it on or off, as their choice, I just hope that popular opinion can be considered?

Cheers, MP

[T_O_A_D]

For some reason I'm not able to sleep tonight.

Ah I see, my ears are burning. LOL

S! Kimosabi

For the record, Fruitbat handles the Emil better than I do.

I can only stay him off, till a draw most times.

And alot of times both of us, do stupid stuff, just trying to see if it works.

In that film, I did a bunch of testing stuff that didn't work.

1vs1 same aircraft allows and forces things like that when tow pilots are evenly matched, and your forcing the aircraft beyond its limits.

It has nothing to do with real world tactics at all.

But it will mark the better pilot, and show you that you are or are not getting the most out of the machine.

While I'm at it, I might as well show you how to pick some fruit, Fruitbat that is. ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_03eBdE72WM

[tf_neuro]

I voted yes, of course. In fact, the lack of 6DoF is the only reason why I dont play on no-mods servers. If 6DoF Tracker was implemented in the stock game I would play on more servers, rather than the usual 1 or 2 where I play all the time.

There are *lots* of servers showing up in Xfire (but not on HL), and I mean servers with people in, but most of them are no-mods. With 6DoF I would give them a try.

[SEE]

Well, apart from headshake, 6DOF in CoD is prettywell exactly as the IL2 mod version other than for a smoother Z axis. All the arguments for a more realistic version in Il1946 have not been implemented in CoD as was rumoured.

[Majo]

What else do we need to get 6DoF...!!!

I mean, after what we have seen lately.

Salutes.

[Herra Tohtori]

Ok, my 0.02 monetary units of your choice.


6DOF is great and mostly works quite well with the cockpits on the game, even if they weren't originally designed for it. Seeing polygons from the wrong side does obviously make them disappear, but it really doesn't affect game balance.


Actually, the only reason I would care for 6DOF support being in official patch is this: NTRK's only save pitch and yaw from the view movements.

This means that if I want to make a 6DOF IL-2 video, I need to use the head tracking software while I'm playing the track of the video, while also running FRAPS (or other video capture program), and that doesn't work so well on a dual core system, as one core is required to run the game, and FRAPS requires the other one - running FRAPS and FreeTrack on the same core makes both FRAPS and FreeTrack laggy and thus affects the performance in quite adverse fashion.

If I could have the NTRK's store all the six parametres for 6DOF head tracking, it would make it so much easier to make a track, then replay it with those view motions while recording the cockpit view.

Of course, I could just shell out some cash for a quad-core CPU but there aren't many AM2+ socket CPU's hovering around with decent-ish prices, it would be more sensible to build an entirely new PC, probably with Intel chipset and CPU this time... as soon as I can get my hands into sufficient bit of gold.

Other than this, having official support doesn't really move me one way or the other - I can have 6DOF with mods if I want it, and the servers I fly on allow mods anyway so I don't lose anything either way. Just, making videos is a bit of a pain in the arse with my system and the limitations of what data is stored on the NTRK system.

[=815=TooCooL]

Since Clod is not enjoyable for now, 6dof in 4.11 is only hope it seems.
At least for me.