How do you guys tweak your head tracker for 109?

[dreamofire]

Hi folks. I know a lot of you guys are using head trackers like trackIR, freetrack or facetrackNOir.

My trackIR works okay with Spitfire or Hurricanes, 'cause they have the aligned gun sights. When I try to use the same configuration with Bf-109, it just doesn't work that well. I can't see my crosshair the most time, you know how bad it feels when you finally get the window to shoot but you just can't find the god d*mned crosshair :evil:

I tried use the magical Shift+F1, but it cause more trouble than benefit, I lost my SA everytime simply after just one switching.

I'm trying to tweak my X, Y and Z axis movement speeds to set a trap for my head where the output of movement slows down within. I'm just wondering if there's a bette solution to this.

Thanks

[VO101_Tom]

I use a TrackIR. It was very unusual initially – as if the pilot's head would be too heavy – but i got used to it by today.
Try it: lean a little bit leftwards, reset TrackIR, you lean back then and the revi will be in the middle.

[Ze-Jamz]

Just tone down your axis in the profile settings and move your head forward n slightly right to align with the crosshairs?

Its really not that hard..sounds to me your profile is too sharp for this Game...my IL2 profile didnt work here it was much to strong for this game..

Whatever you decide to do it IS tricky when your pulling high G's and have head shake enabled etc..

[White Owl]

I use the smooth profile, only slightly tweaked to shrink the dead zone. No issues at all looking at the 109's sight. Just move my head about a half inch and it lines up perfectly.

[JumpingHubert]

the trackIR software is very easy to adjust. My good old TrackIR3 works without problems too.

[flyingblind]

Adjusting your TIR settings will certainly help but there are other issues at work that have been extensively discussed in other threads.

I think you have to ask yourself how real do you want the game to be. Most people who play this game seriously would say as real as possible. In which case they should use the 30 deg FOV. The manual states the correct field of view to use is 30deg. But, you might say, this restricts my view and SA and puts me at a disadvantage. I think it might be worth having a look at the Utube videos of Gp Cptn Paul Day's appraisal of both the Spitfire and the 109 although I expect most have already seen them. They demonstrate just how small the cockpits are and how restricted the view in actual fact really was.(Search 'Spitefire the legend the facts and its opponent' and 'Cockpit of Messerchmitt 109'). So in real life the gunsight would be much more in your face than most people like.

The other big issue is that the gunsights do not behave in quite the same way on a computer screen as in real life because in real life you see 3D objects with two eyes. Look at your monitor and then cover one eye with your hand. You will not lose half the monitor you will still see the whole monitor, just a little less clearly because you cut out half the light. And that is what happens with the gunsights - you only need to look through the sight with one eye with both eyes open and the cross hairs will appear to float outside of the glass screen. In the game this does not happen as the crosshairs can only be seen on the screen which, coupled with the way most people prefer flying at larger field of views than 30deg makes the gunsights more difficult to use. This holds true for both Spits and 109s it just so happens the Germans exploited this phenomenon more than the British by offsetting thier sights to give the pilot a less obscured forward view, they didn't actually have to move or tilt thier heads to take aim. It has been suggested that a better representation would be to allow the crosshairs to float outside of the screen in the game but there are plenty of others who would disagree.

[huckster]

i just lean to the left a bit and center, works for me, you lose a little bit of the cockpit though but its a trade off i'm comfortable with.

[Krt_Bong]

I use a TrackIR. It was very unusual initially – as if the pilot's head would be too heavy – but i got used to it by today.
Try it: lean a little bit leftwards, reset TrackIR, you lean back then and the revi will be in the middle.
Exactly, though at the moment I cannot reset within the game since last patch, you can still?

[335th_GRAthos]

I rarely use the gunsight mode, just prefer to line my head up with the Revi and pray! ;)

LOL! yes, I may try that but, it is generaly bad mixing religion where common logic should be into play... :D

All they needed to do is to disable "head movement restriction" in gunsight mode, just like the original IL2FB :(

But you can post your request here ;)
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=23405

~S~

[lensman1945]

i just lean to the left a bit and center, works for me, you lose a little bit of the cockpit though but its a trade off i'm comfortable with.

+1..the simple elegant solution

[Blackdog_kt]

I can't call this is bug, it's the outcome of combining a new and an old feature into a single implementation.

Up to IL2:1946 we had the "gunsight view". In the new sim the function is renamed, it's supposed to simulate how pilots loosen or tighten their straps.

Currently it works just like the old gunsight view, with a bit of a stabilizing effect and limited amount of movement (not just head movement, since after some point you need to turn your torso as well to look behind you and this is what the straps restrict) once the straps are tightened. It's not the idea that's flawed, it's just that the implementation might be in need of a bit of tweaking.

In the priority bugs thread linked a couple of posts above, someone said that sitting in a real cockpit and tightening the straps doesn't restrict your motion so much that you can't look back.
On the other hand, having watched the youtube videos of the RAF pilot giving an appraisal on the Spit and 109, it seems like the cockpits of WWII aircraft are not modern, comfy ergonomic places but are so confined the guy was having trouble turning around to check six without even putting on the straps at all.

Tweak this, improve it, make it optional through a difficulty setting, it's all fine with me. I just can't help but feel that calling it a bug is stretching it though.

A bunch of similar issues have cropped up and a lot of people ask for some "holding of the hand". I'm fine with it, let's just not make it a default for everyone. Some people actually prefer things being difficult in a realistic fashion (harder doesn't always mean more realistic, but it does in quite a few cases, these we need to be able to have in the sim) so that they can get a better feel of how much of a pain in the behind it was just to operate a complex, non-ergonomic machine like the fighters of the day.

First it was the mechanical tachometers and the negative G cut-out in the Spit and Hurri, developers caved in to pressure from a number of people and changed them for everyone instead of making them optional. Then people started asking for the level stabilizer to be brought back when
a) luftwaffe bombers have autopilots and
b) a much better system could be used for those that lack autopilots (the Blenheim and Br.20), one that simulates how the bombardier actually guides the pilot through a bomb run.

I mean, what's next, instead of fine-tuning the new CEM we should take it away from the sim completely? This is just an example mind you, i don't mean anybody is advocating it (in fact, most people who try the new CEM like it), i'm just making a hypothesis to illustrate the point: if anyone wants things to be easier, they should ask for an option in the difficulty/realism settings so that they can turn off things that annoy them.

I'm not here to tell people how to enjoy their simming. All i'm saying is that making things hard just for the sake of it across the board is just as counter-productive as making things easy for playability's sake alone.

There are people who like facing such difficulties during gameplay because it forces us to change the way we used to fight in IL2:1946 (otherwise it's 1946 all over again, just with better graphics) into something that's more closely attuned to the deliberate, careful and mostly pre-planned nature of how it actually happened: work the engine and plane carefully, get into a position of advantage, swoop in for the kill and get out before they know you're there.

These people should have a choice too. Realism has many aspects and while FM/DM and armaments may be realistic within the limits of available technology, the tactics, general behaviour and flying habits of the average IL2 flier is definitely not. We now have difficulty options that enable us to see the penalty of such behaviour, it's one more type of gameplay and makes things more diverse. Why cripple it for everyone that likes it when it's possible to just turn it off if i don't like it?

I'm not directing this against anyone in particular, i just think that "make things easier" requests don't classify as bugs, they should be optional and not mandatory for everyone ;)

[IvanK]

Snip from Blackdog_Kt's post above:

"First it was the mechanical tachometers and the negative G cut-out in the Spit and Hurri, developers caved in to pressure from a number of people and changed them for everyone instead of making them optional."

Apologies for the thread drift but just a point of order and to set the record straight on the above snippet.

The Negative G cutout was exhaustively researched and proven too sensitive. Research involved discussion with 2 current UK early model Spitfire pilots and a visit to the National Archives (one of many). The attached jpgs from a UK Archive document on the matter. As can be seen in the archive document the measured critical value is +0.1G i.e. a reduction of 0.9G from 1G flight, this from instrumented aircraft looking into this issue.

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/5658/vegcutfile.jpg

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/7585/vegcutfile2.jpg

With respect the "Mechanical tachos" and needle bounce. The RPM fluctuations initially shown bore no resemblance to the real case with respect to the RR Merlin... though for a poorly maintained M14P engine might have some truth :) . What we see now is pretty close to the mark. How do we know that ? Discussion with a couple of current Spitfire pilots flying RR Merlin Spitfires (one a personal friend who flies both RR and Packard spits). (Packard Merlins have Electrical tachos whilst RR Merlins have mechanical). A commercialy available DVD that has a MKII Spit performing a complete display with a lot of really good cockpit footage with the tacho clearly visible. In addition discussion with two current maintenance chiefs for two well known Spitfire operators. All of these discussions came out with the same thing ... pretty much rock steady RPM indications.

Things wernt/arnt changed on a whim but based on the best level of information that can be found.

[Blackdog_kt]

Disregard my previous example then, i guess you get what i'm trying to say anyway.

I'm more than happy to be corrected if it means we're getting an accurate sim. ;)

[335th_GRAthos]

thanks for sharing this IvanK !

[IvanK]

Disregard my previous example then, i guess you get what i'm trying to say anyway.

I'm more than happy to be corrected if it means we're getting an accurate sim. ;)

yep I know exactly what your saying and I agree :)