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.

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?

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/JoeKenda...pestphotos.htm

http://www.hawkertempest.se/res/Misc...gs/cutaway.gif

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

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

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

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.n...orPlate-01.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...eviously-X.jpg(Typhoon, but should be the same)
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Hi...st-Cockpit.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1.../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

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.

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

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.

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/t...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 :)

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 :)

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..

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.

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.

"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

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.

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

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. :)

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?

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.

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.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8i04...eature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w91G...eature=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 :)

.

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.

Cool!:cool:

Fafnir_6

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

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.

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

reading comprehension levels round here are appalling.

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.




Simply bunging in 6DoF is wrong :)
.

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.

Agreed :)

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

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

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.

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.

Noone is questioning that. :(

???

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..

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

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).

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.

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=-hgbo...yer_detailpage

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?

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

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

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..................................

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.

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.

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:

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.

Until 4.12...

4.11 :)

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

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

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.

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

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

You know what I mean...

That's a good thing...

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.

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.

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

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

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. ;)

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

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....

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.

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

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.

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......

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!

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)

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Are there any arguments left...?
 

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

I mean, after what we have seen lately.

Salutes.

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.

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