I like it, its my sparetime and i love to have my simulatior as realistic as possible. Though if someone would stand behind me ready to say ive lost my job if i fail, well ...thats no fun and i think this is the difference here, because this is stress. For me its just fun.

"Enabling" may lie in the touch screen itself which would simply report 'mouseclick' on the screen area you touch. I guess TouchScreen=1 may be required and perhaps some interface code unless Windows has the capability to recognise it? They've been in use for years on simulator instructor's consoles and the like.

It's simple. Extra features require extra controls because there's only so much you can map to a keyboard or even HOTAS without forgetting what you need to push, extra controls require money, so it ends being a choice between

a) enabling a cheaper, universal control device that every PC comes equipped with (mouse) for people that don't have the spare cash, while still being possible to use dedicated controls at the same time for those who want to buy expensive peripherals or build their own custom ones

b) not including new, realism enhancing features because some players are averse to the interface choice (even though there's clearly more than one choice and probably everyone can tune their controls to their preference) or

c) making a sim that only people with $1500 worth of extra peripherals can fly properly.

I'll let you all decide for yourselves which is better for the community and also the potential sales of the sim. It's "everyone can play this by using the right realism settings and controls" VS "only a small percentage can use this properly" VS "let's make it all easy mode because the mouse is not an ideal interfacing option", it's not even a valid dilemma.

I also think there's a part of the community that just wants to cruise around on WEP all day long without having to monitor anything (like in IL2:1946) and think to themselves that it's how it was done in real life, rather than have to face the fact that their preferred gameplay style does not qualify as full switch anymore. There's nothing wrong flying at reduced difficulty settings as long as i'm having fun, that is unless i fly for bragging rights and not fun :rolleyes:



It's perfectly fine making the difficult things optional. What's wrong is making the easy way mandatory.

Cheap, universal gaming device.

Such as the latest Nvidea quad card set up and the best chip set money can buy?

Please.

You know why they left out SLI? For the children... that's why, think of the children.

Can I march into the land of the fanbois and point something out...?

[Captain Obvious on]
Why do you think you add tracers to the loadout in the ammo belts? If you get close enough in and are in the same horizontal plane (no matter what the angle relative to the horizon), your tracers will tell you if you are on the target or not. You can do that by eye alone.

Fanbois, eh? Sheesh....
[Captain Obvious off]

Wow this topic has legs. There is a solution. Fly birds of prey. Their sights are centered. That would be a great fix for anyone wanting centered sights.

I'm sorry, but there are people in here arguing about the ME 109's gunsight as if they are the sniper in the bell tower in the film Saving Private Ryan, or are Jude Law and Ed Harris in Enemy At The Gates. You simply don't get that level of luxury to pick a shot in a real air battle.

In a dogfight, you barely have a second or two to get a burst of fire off at an enemy aircraft and your tracers, along with the nose of the aircraft, are your best guide in this situation.

Yes, but you are in danger of wasting precious ammunition just to check if you are on target. The gunsight will give you a good chance of being close if not dead on, the tracers will allow you to make the small final adjustment if necessary or keep you on target or stop firing if your aiming is clearly out.

Peering through the gunsight as you describe won't help you at all if you are not directly on the target's six and you need to get a deflection shot off, ahead of the target, especially in a turning battle as you simply won't have the time. You'd see nothing but sky through the gunsight.

It may work on bombers but not on fighters, especially against an experienced pilot. It's better to get a 'feel' through experience as to where the shots will go by line-of-sight and the plane of the aircraft, as that's more instinctive and intuitive, but that's just my opinion.

Flying in a straight line for more than two seconds whilst in a furball is likely to get you shot down and you may be doing just that, while you are picking your shot.

I haven't read all this post but I am with Lixma on this and he is right in saying you cannot replicate the way a 109 Revi sight works in real life on a flat computer screen and his solution of the sight ring floating outside the glass screen is probably the closest you can get.
To get an idea of the effect make a 3 inch square from card or paper. Draw a large gunsight ring and cross hair to fill the square. Sit in front of your monitor and holding the card in your right hand keep looking at the screen with both eyes open and move the card in from the right a few inches from your nose untile the centre of the cross is straight in front. You will see the cross and the computer screen in line and in front of you. Close you right eye and you will see the screen then close your left eye and your view will be obscured by the card. You can see that it would work much better if the card was clear glass or plastic, the sight was illuminated and it was given the correct focus for your eye.
Also, in real life it wasn't a case of peering through the gunsight or lining up as the optics of the sight meant the cross hairs or ring was floating in front of you eyes in the correct position regardless of head movement, all you needed to do was keep the glass screen between your eyes or eye and the target and manoever the plan to get in position. Those utube vids posted earlier in this thread show the way it worked. And sure, an experienced pilot could pull off all sorts of snap shots and the like but he was probably no more relying on tracers than taking careful aim.

Exactly, this is why experience and the centre line of the aircraft are more likely to help you as you gain more confidence with dogfighting, particularly with deflection shooting.

people want to have the gunsight in front of them? why don't you use SHIFT F1?

or put the cockpit view out...

you can't pretend play in full reaity and be assist!

stop whining... the gunsight is realistic... then or you lower the realistic setting...or buy a trak IR or ajust your position with the mouse! you can drag left or right by pressing the scroll button and the right or left click!

what will be the other post? add dammage done by ammo becaue kill a plane is too hard? please.... set the realistic setting lower and train to fly and shoot...later you put setting more and more realist.

or a good idea... go to WOP and enjoy arcade game!

Yep works nicely.

+1 for the return of the old and non zoomed shif+f1 lean for non Track IR users. Zoom would be controlled separately then, and there isn't a need to have the whole cross hair visible on that newer shift+f1 position if that's need to keep the pilot straight, just a compromise between centered seating and completely leaning left so you can still aim.
Btw, I guess things were pretty decent on 1946 as they were.

What Lixma is trying to say is that the right eye reticle image combines with the left eye no-reticle image and the brain interprets a centralised combined view. See the attached sketch. There is no way to simulate this on a 2D flat screen. Even moving your eye to the right in CoD isn't an optically realistic view, it is a fudge to 'simulate' putting the combined central view onto the screen.

Another problem is that the gunsight is not presented properly. It should be square on to the right eye and angled to the left eye. That binocular view can't be simluated either and IMHO it favours the 'left eye' view, so the angle off and the amount you have to move your head is too great even if we accept the fact that we have to move our head at all. Its too far off centre to represent what the pilot really had to do.

The real situation is that the head did not have to be moved much at all, if any. What kind of stupid obstacle would that have been to give a man fighting for his life? Lean way to the right and try to pick up the reticle while losing all other SA? They were a lot smarter than that.

Perhaps the binocular view seen through the sights as suggested by Lixma could be created as a mod rather than hope the developers would produce it as an option. I would certainly use it as I think it is the best representation of the way the sight would work IRL that can be got on a computer screen.
In fact there are a number of contentious issues that might be solved by creating mods, an obvious one being the correct rev counter with the bouncy needle versus the steadier but incorrect electrical variant.

+1 give us our old IL2FB gunsight view and stop this kind of sadistic experiments!

I use TrackIR 3 without 6DOF, if my problem is solved by buying TR5 (or my installing 6DOF) then this is crap, just fix the frigging thing and do not make me go to the computer shop to buy hardware in order to fix my problem...

~S~

Yes, they should fix it. They did so many things correctly but unfortunately not this one.

My fear is that they fear that if they implemented the gunsight as Lixma presented which would be correct, many people would not understand why it has to be this way and then spam the forum with their complaints about "unrealistic" gunsight even though it would be more realistic than what we have :evil:

But at the end it is a game, which is considered to be a simulation.
That means a game like this should try to hit the thin line between a real simulation and a game...at the end we all playing this for fun.

If players, me aswell having trouble to get a target correctly into the revi, and start getting frustzrated about it,...and i guess that point is already reached for some...,a game dev should really seriously think about to add an option like we had in Il2-1946 (shift+F1).
Add it to the "Realism Option" or whatever but pls dont make the players suffer under it.
TrackIR is a great software/hardware,but it shouldnt be a requirement to fly that game properly.

The seatbelt option is just useless, as u cant follow your oponent and it is by very far unrealistic.

So yes, pls add or substitute the classic shift+F1 (Il2-1946') gunsight view.

yes.
this is the better option, or the "loosen shoulder straps" view leans you to the right. pretty much how gunsight view worked in 1946 in fact.

You only need to have the "head movement restriction" while in gunsight mode REMOVED
It makes the gunsight view just like in the original IL2FB.

Rememeber please, if you are interested in this thing happening, to post your request ("remove head movement restriction while in gunsight mode") in the "bucket list"
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=23405

~S~

Non TrackIR users, NewView center Bf109 gunsight without using "loosing straps".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=tBcu_3Hn9IA

Sokol1

Thanks for the video Sokol, wow!!!!!

Hmm, is there a manual in English? I foud the manual of version v33 but it is in Russian (looks Greek to me...:( )

~S~

AFAIK - No english manual - NewView has always been overlooked in Western forums. For non TrackIR users NewView is very usefull to improve IL-2 Pan View, but do more things, like a key/button mapper.

Notice that NewView work together with head track devices too, like TrackIr, Freetrack, Cam2Pan,URgear (?). Look at "Helmet" tab.

To CloD you need NewView version 37X - find in link below.

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=67864
This thread in Sukhoi forum is about use in CloD (BoB for then), and have some samples of how configure key to center gunsight in 109.

Use some online translator and PM Hruks (the developer), they answer in english.

The best I understand (with Google :P ):

After initial NewView config (language, CloD location...), set a UView (User view) to 109 gunsight:

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4269/52935774.th.jpg

For different german planes you need different values for X, Y, Z - so create a UView #2, #3...

Notice that you can configure up to 30 UViews (user views), so you can configure one key to instantly look at tachometer, another to prop pitch clock, another for temp... etc.

FYI - I dont test this UView feature, if dont work, dont blame me. :)

Sokol1

THANK YOU!!!!
You answered the question I did not dare to ask (actually I had deducted from v.33 that it does not) :)

Too late ;)


Honestly, thanks a million,

~S~

I use TrackIR without NewView and do not use Gunsight View at all, just centre the TrackIR accordingly to have Revi in front of me. I assume you can do the same with FreeTrack if you do not want to learn using NewView.

You already mentioned it some time ago, thanks for the comments Ataros, let me check some things next time I fire-up my game PC and I will come back to you.
You see, I tried that last time and it does not work for me:
With TRACK IR on, I cannot move the screen.
I have to disable TRACKIR to move with the mouse and center the screen around the gunsight.
As soon as I re-enable TRACKIR, it jumps to the normal centered mode :(
I must be missing something stupidly obvious...

(I do not have 6DOF, if that is the prohibiting reason, I do not know. Well I do have the hardware but it is somewhere among dozens of cartos in a warehouse and we have 43 degrees C outside so, not highly motivating to go search for it...)

~S~

I use 6dof because left-to-right movement is assigned to x axis I believe which you do not have in 3dof. Without 6dof NewView is the solution I think.

With 6dof you lean left, press TIR center button, get back to vertical posture and this does the trick. The response is not 100% symmetrical in this case but it is hardly noticeable when you adjust response curves to your preference.

Try Freetrack if you have time it should support 6dof I think.

Please leave the gun sight where it is now! I like to have as much of the handicaps a real pilot was faced with. With trackIR I just like to train my abs and have fun the same time. Makes it all a little less passive and thus more realistic.

ROFL !!!!!!
excellent one!

Yes, this is how I feel when I hear "famous last words" like the one before....



So how on earth do you know this RE77ACTION? You have been flying so much the real Bf109 that you know what the real thing is...
Sorry for becoming personal.


OK, this overspilled the glass.

I am a bit busy for the next hours, I will post some photos of how the gunsight looked like in front of the pilot's face in order to get this "reality" thing in place :-D


~S~

Can't be arsed going through it all again so i'll just repeat myself the easy way....

Don't forget as well that to see things more as a 109 pilot would see them you need to be in 30deg FOV so that the sight appears at the correct size and not the postage stamp size seen in 70deg or 90deg FOV. But I doubt anyone flys using 30deg FOV even those claiming they only want complete realism. When the chips are down everyone will compromise.

Ok, guys, my bad... But you can't expect me to read through more than 30 pages of rubbish small talk to find out where the initial discussion ended.

EDIT: I assumed that the current gunsight was correct because I've read a lot of posts stating that. Maybe I could have done more research, but I didn't find any indication to do so.

Custom centering hotkey: lean to the side (either with 6DOF headtracking or with the mouse), press the hotkey and your centered point of view now defaults to the new position.

That's all that's needed to be honest, not eliminating the view restrictions.

The reason we can't turn around much in gunsight view is that it corresponds to tightened shoulder straps. Judging by the now famous videos of the RAF pilot giving an appraisal on the 109 and Spitfire cockpits, it seems that having your shoulders tightly bolted on to the seat would severely limit a pilot's ability to look around: we only move our heads (at least those of us with hedtrackers) because we are using accelerated input/output curves in the relevant interface, but in reality to look back one needs to turn the torso around as well.

Anyone who's driven a car and had to reverse at some point or parallel park knows this, to look back you need to turn the entire upper half of your body around and not just your head.

This is what the gunsight view simulates first and foremost, with the straps tightened there is less headshake at the cost of reduced ability to turn the our virtual body around, with loosened straps we can look back easier but there's more headshake.

That's why i am firmly against eliminating this feature:
1) It's realistic.
2) The gunsight troubles are a side effect that can easily be fixed.

How? By making the reticule visible from the normal centered position (to simulate the fact that in reality our right eye would be able to see it) or giving us the ability to set a custom center viewpoint.

There's no need to do away with a realistic feature just because of an easy to fix side-effect, it would be like disabling the mixture controls on RAF aircraft because they are reversed: "this is confusing, let's completely delete it instead of properly fixing it", it's a throw the baby out with the bath water approach :-P

The gunsight is correctly modelled....it's just that our in-game pilot only has one central eye so only half the reticle is visible. The Shift-F1 view in CoD (and IL-2 classic) is a workaround; an attempt to compensate for the inability to accurately simulate binocular vision on a 2D display.

Type 'Cyclops' into the 'search this thread' thingy and you'll find the relevant posts.

Fair point, but be careful.

My head can only rotate roughly 90 degrees left to right. Nevertheless I can still see behind me fairly well without moving my torso. It's not terribly comfortable, and because my nose gets in the way i'm only seeing through one eye...but I can still see.

The limits of in-game visibility should be tied to what the eyes can see, rather than how far our head can rotate.

Hey blackdog! I am also one of those who fully support the authentic positioning of the gunsight in axis fighters, but I believe the entire feature is implemented wrong in the game. I've written my honest opinion on this mechanic in a different thread http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=133 .

What I think would be correct is to completely eliminate the feature as a "static" view, but make the game so that when you "tighten straps" you sit upright against the seat and can only look forwards and to the sides, relying on peripheral vision to see what's behind you. When you select "loosen straps" you get the "normal" viewmode where you can lean, shift sideways, move forwards etc and also twist your upper body to look outside an open canopy or try to see what's behind you. Then you can also move your head directly infront of the gunsight. This would be the ideal takeoff/flight/scouting position to fully see what's going on. And when entering combat you would lean backwards, tighten the straps so you won't be tossed around and then fight. You should still be able to lean just enough sideways to be able to see the sight properly, since we cannot simulate human eyesight in CloD. (IRL I prefer firing weapons without squinting my left eye. This way I'll see normally, but the right eye will be staring down the ironsights, kindof superimposing the sight over my entire view.) It's fully possible to do, and is what the axis design sought out to do!

Oh c'mon guys, are you not ashamed at all!? :(

You were supposed to wait for me :-D

No prob RE77ACTION, sorry for been a bit rough, this Revi things annoys me because I am lazy (do not want to go looking for my 6DOF kit when it is damn hot outside) and stubborn (I could claim this comes with age, but it is not :-D).

Nice picture Lixma it adds the scientific part which I was missing.I from my side I can contribute a picture from the practical side.
This is a scan from the A4 size picture of the Revi of the FW190 (do not ask me why we can find more pictures of the FW190 than of the Bf109) from the Book "Klassische Jagdflugzeuge" from HEEL Verlag 2000
It is a picture shot from the propeller, while the pilot is sitting inside the cockpit.
It is almost centered. Actually if you look better at the Rudder, the tip in the middle at the top of the cockpit frame and the small U-shaped thing on the top of the engine cowling, the photographer was sitting slightly to the right, which actually means the real situation of the pilots eyes and the Revi would be even better than the pictures show.
The quality is excellent on the book but I am not good with scanning and making pictures smaller (as my other posts have already proven) but I hope the result is clear enough:
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/FW190_Revi1.jpg

And a zoom in of the picture showing clearly how well the Revi is in front of the right eye of the pilot (as Lixma unshamefully dared to mention before me):
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/FW190_Revi2.jpg

I highlighted the Revi on this picture, just in case:
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/FW190_Revi3.jpg

So, more than half the pilot's face (maybe this pilot has a remarkably big nose) is in front of the Revi.

I think it like shooting with a pistol: If you keep both eyes open the pistol's gunsight is not centered. If you close your left eye however, the gunsight is straight in front of your right eye.

CoD is showing us the view from both eyes and for obvious reasons, we can not close our left eye and fix the problem as it was in real life...

Anyway, we are turning circles here, it is just a frigging fix, for 10 years it was not a problem, now we got stuck with this bull... (pardon my French) and Luthier got a deaf ear :(

At least with these pictures we may stop this "Historic reality so it is correct" crap because I have heard this too often in the forum and it turns my stomach (no offence RE77ACTION you were the trigger but not the reason).

~S~


PS. And maybe somebody with some Russian knowledge could post something to Luthier because patience has also limits...

GRAthos, actually the pilot is leaning slightly to his right (you can tell by the head position in the cockpit + the head-cushion on the seat. Also since the photographer is slightly to the planes LEFT side when shooting the photograph, it doesn't clearly show how much he is leaning to his right. It also doesn't show 100% how easy it is for him to look through his sight! I think the game is good as it is.

I don't have to lean very far at all to see through the revi on the 109. and actually the tracers serve as a good indication (if you use tracers) as to where you're aiming. And you have like 1000 bullets :P

Oops, you are right!

Sorry guys, never looked at this picture so intensively.

So I have to be thankfull to Lixma for his scientific picture after all :)

~S~

@335th_GRAthos: No problem, it's okay. I understand it gets annoying when you have to explain this thing for 100th time. At least I would get annoyed from it... ;)

Nice reading though!

GRAthos

I think the photo is misleading because you are assuming he is aiming at a target. I think he is just leaning to the right or perhaps 'aiming' at the camera (which is a little to his left).

I have marked the pilot's eye position behind the sight and then projected the MG17 and aircraft centrelines onto the photo and placed the sightline pro-rata in position according to Lixma's FW190 drawing. You can see that the sight line passes to the right of the pilot's eye - or the left of it from the pilot's point of view (see thumbnail).

Then I enlarged the pilots face and placed a box around his eyes. I then placed a red box of the same width, offset to the right by the amount the aiming eye is off the sight line (I added the eye position too) plus it's centreline. You can see that the red eyes box centreline is in the centre of the cockpit frame give or take a pixel (second thumbnail).

So it all lines up with Lixma's drawing and the pilot does not lean when aiming.

Unless of course we have a RL WWII 109 pilot on the forum who knows better.

Nice work Klem, a bit too difficult for me, Lixma's drawing is a straight explanation, better than my picture.

I admit looking at the picture in front of me (A4 size) it is so high quality that I am drawn by the eyes of the pilot looking straight at me that I did not notice the headreast behind.

What however grasped my attention is the size of the Revi glass because it covers more than half his face.

http://inscale.org/pub/index.php?act...1691%3Bpreview


http://i1100.photobucket.com/albums/...pit_photo2.jpg


http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=13417.0

HI All,

I'm wondering if someone can tell me if we have possibility to set up a weapons sight in 109 as in old IL2!

As it is ATM it's real easy to loose track of the sight after maneuvering. If it was that hard IRL wouldn't they have changed to the English stile sight?

The sight can be viewed with the right eye whilst the left eye can see out the windshield.

currently in CloD our eye position is in the exact MIDDLE of the cockpit, this is incorrect.

Solution: 1) Run the game in 3d (I have tried this, it went okay but the fps dropped fairly low on my system)
2) Shift the default eye position to the right (so that the gunsight is always visible... this is ok I guess but it defeats the purpose of have both a clear line of sight and a gunsight at all times)


on a side note:
I think we can also all agree that the head movement from g's is too much, head movement should be mostly tracking the horizon (as in DCS).
The cockpit view has the pilots head too far forward, especially with loosened seatbelt.

Yes and Yes.

In CloD you only have one eye - right in the middle of your forehead (as it was in IL-2).

As I've said many times, the 'gunsight' view would be ok if it didn't bang your eye right up to the sight glass but left it at your default distance.

All we need for gunsight view is a shift sideways as in IL-2 and forget the seat belt/head forward nonsense.

If you are fortunate enough to have TrackIR, do what I do and just lean a little to the right. As long as you can see the centre of the cross-hair you can judge the rest ok. Leaning further will get you the whole cross-hair.

I managed to get up to the cockpit of a Bf109E-3 last weekend. I read they were tight but I have to say I was suprised at just how tight!

Looking inside it (from no more than a foot away) my perception was that I would hardly have to move my head to see through the sight. The BF's are extremely nice up close and the first time I have seen them in flight - super ac and one I must fly (in game) more regularly.

I was very close to some diff variants at Duxford last weekend and i do agree with you... Spits are graceful in flight and have an awesome sound from that Merlin but the 109 looks like a fighter and sounds just as nice as the Merlin due to its supercharger...Shame i didnt see the Fw-190, now thats one mean looking aircraft that just looks the buisness

Shouldn't you simply be able to adjust this setting ( glancing through the gunsight ) , from trackIR settings yourself?

Maybe it's possible to adjust the axis curves in your settings, choose the axis which deals with "leaning your neckl".

And put up much higher acceleration/or-some-kind-of-crazy-curve (but only for that "leaning neck" axis?). Also, if possible, make it into an asymmetric axis curve, so you have strong acceleration to the right side (you always lean towards right into the gunsight, for shooting opportunity), but maybe not so much acceleration towards the left side.

x axis, in trackIR, should be axis for this "leaning neck"- motion, sideways,

y axis should be basically, when you sit in more upright posture, or slouch down into your seat.

z axis is when you move your face front or back.

Yaw axis is head turning sideways, and pitch axis is nodding your head up or down.

roll axis is turning (rolling?) your neck towards your shoulder basically (more or less limited motion, inside small bf-109 canopy)

For me, the problem in IL-2 1946 has been mostly the slowness, when you lean your head into the gunsight, it somehow takes maybe one second or slightly more for the gunsight to settle into it's its full picture (maybe it's a practicing issue though)

And like it was said, you can also try to adjust center point of your trackIR, so that it will settle down into the "roughly center" area of the gunsight picture (while you are engaged in the "non-centered gunsight mode")

problem with this simpler method is that you need to re-center it always in this special way, when flying bf-109.

for the record there was atleast one cyclopean Luftwaffw pilot as you would put it. He lost his eye in earlier combat, but he returned to duty, he fought until 1945. It's kind of embarrasinf that I forgot his name, but he most likely served in one of the staffels of JG26. He was an older veteran ace compared to the raw recruits that provided bulk of pilot reserve.

Although he did get a little bit assistance from his wingman, during landings (because with only one eye he couldnt tell depth so easily). Probably wingman landed alongsode him oer in front of him.

Then on japanese side there was saburo sakai who became cyclops ( or a pirate if youd prefer that lol)

Do you guys know idf saka was able to bag any kills over americans after he got wounded?

Good Grief.