Using guns in turrets?

[Art-J]

I don't want to see the turrets dumbed down for the sake of "fun", if the plane was equipped with moving mount and parked position option, these should stay, obviously. However, some things that can be made more simple and intuitive, the ones we got used to (mouse button for fire, reversed Y-axis mouse aiming), they should be fixed.

[ZaltysZ]

conf.ini:

[rts_mouse]
SensitivityX=1.5
SensitivityY=1.5
Invert=1

Those values control mouse speed and Y axis reversal. Keep in mind, that if you invert it, it will affect mouse look too.

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by Art-J

I don't want to see the turrets dumbed down for the sake of "fun", if the plane was equipped with moving mount and parked position option, these should stay, obviously. However, some things that can be made more simple and intuitive, the ones we got used to (mouse button for fire, reversed Y-axis mouse aiming), they should be fixed.

Well, any dumbing down should be approached in the traditional IL-2 way, via difficulty, or if you prefer, dumbing down options.

And I'd agree with you that while one may discuss how "dumb" a server should be, at the top level any sim should strive for realism.

However, that doesn't explain the difficulty for difficulties sake approach that seems to be have been taken in so many aspects of this game's design.

Far too many gamers have always thought "harder = more real = more macho" and it's simply not true. It's not true in pure simulation terms (ask any real pilot here what he thinks of the visibility/dot range/icon range discussions) and it's absolutely not true in game terms; and it's amazing to me that the "harder = more real" fallacy has filtered through to the design team who should have the maturity to know better, especially as we approach the American launch, a country famed for it's need to "dumb down" every consumer device known to man (Objects seen over your shoulder with Track-ir may be closer than they appear).

Yes, a powered gun turret was a complex and complicated installation. And guess why it was complex? Because every effort was spent to make it easy to use, that's why! That's realism, but apparently when we discuss realism it only counts if it makes the game harder.

Where, oh where is the realism in the F10 button? How does making the turrets just that much harder to use increase realism?

Where, oh where is the realism in inverting the controls compared to all other Clod interfaces? How does exchanging up for down increase realism? Why not change left and right while you're at it, wouldn't you get even more realism?

I really wonder just what they're thinking of.

[KG26_Alpha]

As a "Ace" IL2 1946 tail gunner...............

I find CoD tail gunnery needs simplifying by more flexible key mouse options.

In IL2 I'm used to flying backwards whilst using the tail gunners.

In CoD its impossible to this efficiently without being able to bind key operations.

By the time you get all the procedures out the way your shot to pieces.

Also I don't seem to be able to damage fighters with the tail guns.

Don't even mention the inverted mouse in TG

So yes simplify the tail gunner stuff and fix the mouse firing locked movement and mouse inversion to start with.

Then the bomb arming and then the .................................................. ......

[Ploughman]

F10 toggles the mouse cursor. If you want clickable cockpits and to be able to use the mouse to aim your gun, you want F10 to switch between mouse modes.

FFS.

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by Ploughman

F10 toggles the mouse cursor. If you want clickable cockpits and to be able to use the mouse to aim your gun, you want F10 to switch between mouse modes.

FFS.

Click a lot in the gunner position do you?

Confusing how the game interface is programmed to how it could be programmed are we?

FFS.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Seeker

Click a lot in the gunner position do you?

Confusing how the game interface is programmed to how it could be programmed are we?

FFS.

I can understand your frustration but there's a reason behind it. It's not in-cockpit switches you might want to click on from the gunner's position, it's on-screen windows like the chat-bar or the map, plus i think the F10 toggle stays the way you set it between sessions. If i want to give my nephew a ride as a gunner, i just disable it once at the start of the mission

I'm not trying to come off as a smart-a*s, i actually find the interface implementation very good, it's just hard to shake old habits from IL2:1946. The interface is complicated but it's also very customizable too, but i find that is a byproduct of the overall complexity in modeling more of how each aircraft operates.

For example, we have no clickable switches in the gunner's seat but that could change if we get in-game voice comms that model radios or when the expansions start moving to late war scenarios. In many bombers some gunners had a dual role, for example the Ju88 rear gunner is also the radio operator, the B-17 top turret gunner is the flight engineer and the fuel transfer system that moves fuel between different tanks in the event of damage is operated by him, and so on.

I think the main issue with gunners right now is that moving the gun mount is not very smooth when using keys/buttons for it. This is not such a big deal in most aircraft where the gun has a wide range of motion, because you can just turn it to the approximate direction of the oncoming fighter and then use the mouse as normal.

The problem is that it makes it hard to use the Blenheim turret, because the gun mount controls are tied to it. This happens because the gun also has a small range of movement on its own (regardless of turret position) and the mouse is mapped to that, which leaves the gun mount controls to operate the turret.
To further explain it, turret left/right is mapped to the gun mount controls, while gun left/right and gun up/down works with the mouse. The problem is that turret left/right is more useful than gun left/right as the gun has a tiny range of X-axis movement within the turret's porthole. If they just reversed it so that the mouse controls gun up/down and turret left/right and the gun mount controls are used for gun left/right, it would be fine.

The Br.20 top turret on the other hand (although the axes are reversed for now, i guess this is a bug) is fully mouse controlled because the gun doesn't move inside the turret, but moves along with the whole turret assembly.

The control logic goes something like this:

1) If there's only one possible movement it's tied to the mouse.
2) If there's two possible movements the mouse moves the gun and the gun mount controls move the rest of the assembly.

I hope i'm making sense here, hopefully this should help people understand what's going on and map their controls in a better fashion.

I think that mapping a secondary analog control to the gun mount controls would solve this problem for people who have a HOTAS with a ministick or even a console controller with those analog thumb controllers (it was mapped to the joystick by default but that also moves the control surfaces so i changed it to keyboard), until they come up with a better solution or modify the control logic on a per-aircraft basis.