Originally Posted by klem (Post 227314)

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

Originally Posted by kimosabi (Post 227471)

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.

Originally Posted by carl (Post 226571)

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 (Post 226773)

+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 (Post 226983)

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.

Originally Posted by MD_Titus (Post 227498)

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

reading comprehension levels round here are appalling.

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha (Post 227500)

......
Simply bunging in 6DoF is wrong :)
.

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha (Post 227432)

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 :)

.

Originally Posted by arthursmedley (Post 227470)

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

Originally Posted by EvilJoven (Post 227548)

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.

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha (Post 227432)

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 :)

.

Originally Posted by Tolwyn (Post 227549)

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.