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

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by kimosabi

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.

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by Gunshi091

+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 .

Originally Posted by klem

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
.