Friday 2010-10-08 Dev. update and Discussion

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

In the first set of shots, the RAF pilot looks like he's wearing his goggles down with no oxygen mask. By all means a pilot might have done this, but really they would have the mask and have the goggles up unless they enjoyed having their vision distorted.
I could go into more detail, but I don't want to bore the rest of the community Of course there are loads of combinations for the way a pilot could wear their headgear, but such a set as you have posted seems very unusual to me.

Your post seem's a bit odd to me, the goggles look to be perfectly centered and square to the pilots face. Regarding the mask, unless at 10,000 feet and above, there is no need for it. And would therefore be an option for the pilot...I still hope for a pure positive reaction from you one of these weeks, I know that you mean well, but the goggles are not worn low in that shot.

[SlipBall]

Thank you for the up-date Oleg, hope that your parents are well...Foo, excellent work!

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

Your post seem's a bit odd to me, the goggles look to be perfectly centered and square to the pilots face. Regarding the mask, unless at 10,000 feet and above, there is no need for it. And would therefore be an option for the pilot...I still hope for a pure positive reaction from you one of these weeks, I know that you mean well, but the goggles are not worn low in that shot.

You have completely misread my post mate
Firstly, the goggles position is fine. But a pilot would be a bit of a dunce if he chose to wear his goggles down like this. By all means they might have liked to have done this, but it would distort vision and be a general nuisance.
Indeed, the pilot here has no mask connected to his helmet. It's possible it's hanginge from one of the lengths of the wiring loom, but it'd be a bitch to put on if he chose to go to a higher altitude.
Generally, I have only seen a couple of pictures of pilots wearing their goggles down like this. It's quite rare for the reasons I previously stated.
Even the lack of an oxygen mask is rare. Even if he had no need for oxygen, the mask contains the microphone. This pilot may be testing a larangyphone (sorry, I know I've spelt this wrong) but I doubt that.
He may be using gosport tubes, but again I doubt this too. So this pilot seems to be using no microphone, and there are no visible wires going into his b-type helmet to show that he has the c-type radio eaerphones installed

This may all go over your head mate. This is hardly a neccessity for SoW, but for future patches I think this is quite important. I have supported my criticism with information, but I will add that posting pictures will be hard as there were so many mask/goggle/helmet combinations available (although for this period there were only 4 types of goggles, 1 mask, 1 helmet (I'm not including the 1930 pattern) and 2 mics in use)

[RedToo]

Goggles - AFAIK some fighter pilots wore goggles etc. in combat at any altitude (and gloves) because of fear of cockpit fire.

RedToo.

[winny]

Maybe the pilots just took the masks off for the 'camera'... so we can see them smiling!

(maybe not)

[matsher]

Originally Posted by The Cheese

I believe that the issue of no cockpit view was shown in an update maybe a year or two ago. If I remember correctly, we'll be able to have realistic-looking dials, we'll be able to move them around on the screen, resize them, choose which dials we want, and we'll be able to set their opaquity. So if this hasn't changed since then and I'm remembering correctly, then that's what you can expect.

Yeah, on release we will have the new WW view and cockpit view that is certain. The new WW view is a quantum leap ahead as far as looks and
customization goes... Although... It is still Wonderview... Albeit a fantastic version. The thinking was to have a third option to go with full cockpit and wonderview. The inbetween view...
Oleg very kindly responded to my post and explained that it is very possible to
create a semi transparent cockpit view, but it'd have to be created as a 2D rendering and wouldn't look good (To Olegs high standards) he reckons it would look like a sim from the late 80's or early 90's... And that's a fair comment...
He also said that they couldn't render a semi transparent cockpit with the fully 3D system in which they created the planes, cause we'd see everything else as well... engine, struts, fuel tanks, etc etc...
So that option is clearly a 'CANT DO' area... Which is also fair enough...

He sadly didn't comment on Xnomad's suggestion of keeping the cockpit fully on
and having the enemy/friendly iD markers and direction indicators visible in cockpit... This was the one I was really hoping he'd have a look at cause it addressed all concerns about Lower FPS and not being able to make the beautiful 3D cockpits semi transparent...

I personally don't need a view like the I'm suggesting... It is more for new
flyers to help with lead shooting and combat maneuver training...
eg. You're descending fast on a fighter... your first shots miss... the fighter sees you and banks hard left, you perform a high yoyo to reduce your speed and get a little height - This is where this view comes in - when you exit your high yoyo you'd want to train to exit the maneuver so you're again in the perfect firing position... (so not pulling out too soon and also not loosing too much altitude.)
It will help to get timing, control input and correct positioning of maneuvers without being forced to use external views...
There are literally dozens pf examples where an inbetween view could help...
Carrier landings, straffing, cross-wind landings, formation flying as well as the aforementioned combat maneuvering etc.


All these are easy to do with WW view and external cameras, but the aim is to get pilots to appreciate being in cockpit and having the immersive feeling if flying in a beautifully rendered fighter, without having to sacrifice on dynamic gameplay (WW View) for the sake of realism.

For those of you who don't know what we're talking about I'll include the mock-up from pg 3. This feature could be disabled outside of a predefined view distance (maybe 500m or 1km) so as not to disrupt... It could be a "strictly within kill distance" feature... or something like that.

And guys, please don't slate me for making this suggestion now... I know it won't be made for release or anytime soon, I am just putting it out there and
hoping for some insightful, relevant input from my fellow airheads.

Originally Posted by JQB

Oleg, if I may add a couple of suggestions:

2 have information available to pilots similar to info a real pilot would have, eg. esential stats for the plane such as take off speed, stall speed, approach speed, best glide speed etc. Maybe have a cheat card for lower level of difficulty. IL2 lacked this a little...

This above point is also a very important thing to have for new pilot training,
its a real bastard to land any plane never mind a 40's fighter / bomber... And without these essential figures it makes learning to fly these planes exponentially more difficult. Just knowing the stall speed (under different loads) of each plane would help... New pilots always have a tendency to come in for landing too high and too hot... And knowing your best glide speed to get the best Horiz m/s for the least Vert m/s loss is great when your engine has been shot out.

I am sure Oleg and team would include these figures on release, fingers crossed.

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by RedToo

Goggles - AFAIK some fighter pilots wore goggles etc. in combat at any altitude (and gloves) because of fear of cockpit fire.

RedToo.

No question about it. It was down to personal choice.
Geoffrey Wellum had his ground-screw make him up a blast-shield (to act as goggles) out of celluloid which looked like a modern-day visor for a bone-dome helmet. The idea was clear; it would provide a clear view and serve to protect the pilot.
Alas, this was not so. The celluloid was used for the lenses of the mark III and IIIa goggles. It scratched easily, was prone to distortion and, in the word's of Wellum, 'burned brilliantly' when he was shot down in flames in the battle. He always wore goggles after this event, but made sure they weren't made from celluloid. Luckily he never had cause to use them, as he kept them on top oh his helmet as most pilots did.
I am writing this from memory, but I am sure that what I have written is correct. It's very interesting to me, so I'm sorry if my interests are lost on anyone
By all means, a pilot might choose to wear his goggles down on his helmet, but I can't see the merits as although the goggles modelled currently in SoW don't have celluloid lenses, I have a pair of these goggles in my collection (they are mark Iv's by the way) and they are the most cumbersome goggles ever designed. They're heavy and extremely awkward. I have just tested my pair to make sure I am writing this from experience, and wearing it over my b-type helmet it is a) difficult to get into place and b) provides very poor visibility. It really does make one feel quite hemmed-in. If my plane was hit, I would (of course) wear the goggles, but in a combat situation and in a pre-combat situation, I'd much rather rely on my own eyesight.

Going back to this pilot, maybe he is smiling for the camera! () and if so then kudos to Oleg for showing the excellent pilot-animations, but I can't see why he has no R/T accessibility at the very least.

Thanks, again, Oleg for an excellent update. I can see we are very close now. Don't let my view here get in the way of release.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

Alas, this was not so. The celluloid was used for the lenses of the mark III and IIIa goggles.

?

Why did they use celluloid instead of glass?
What were motorcyclists lenses made of?

[MD_Titus]

tire is when you get fatigued, tyre is what goes on wheels.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

tire is when you get fatigued, tyre is what goes on wheels.

The language may have been invented over there, but we perfected it over here....ain't I right?

I know a lot of goggles were disposable. Weight would also maybe have been a factor. Glass would have shattered if struck by a fragment. Maybe some services/pilots went for lighter weight? On the other hand, cellulose is very flammable and I would hate to have it so close to my face.

Another one of those cool little trivia mysteries from that time.

EDIT: I missed Phillip's post prior to this post, good info there. He answered the quesstions I asked here beffore I asked them lol.

Splitter