Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik

IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator.

View Poll Results: Would you sacrifice small graphical issues in order to be able to use 6-DoF
Yes I could cope with this as it would add to my flying experience 270 85.44%
No, I'd rather have my head on a fixed stick thanks you very much 46 14.56%
Voters: 316. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-21-2011, 02:13 PM
KG26_Alpha KG26_Alpha is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,805
Default

Quote:
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
+1
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-21-2011, 05:21 PM
Gunshi091 Gunshi091 is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha View Post
+1
+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 .
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-21-2011, 06:51 PM
EJGr.Ost_Caspar EJGr.Ost_Caspar is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunshi091 View Post
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 ) .

Thats not a bad idea!
Not sure if its technically possible and the kind of penalty, if you do maneuvres without fastened strapping is also a very unsure question, but definitly a step in the right direction.

BTW: Does anyone know, if it was possible for the pilot to loosen seatbelts after he ones fastened them? Or was it as easy to do it and vice versa as a push onto a keyboard?
__________________

----------------------------------------------
For bugreports, help and support contact:
daidalos.team@googlemail.com

For modelers - The IL-2 standard modeling specifications:
IL-Modeling Bible
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-21-2011, 10:35 PM
trashcanman trashcanman is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenrir View Post
The only joke here is your attitude. Take a hike loser.
Thank you for your appreciation of the right to free speech ..
I am expressing my opinion and supporting it with facts.
I am sorry you do not like that.

Maybe you are the one in need of a long walk?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-21-2011, 11:52 PM
Fenrir's Avatar
Fenrir Fenrir is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trashcanman View Post
Thank you for your appreciation of the right to free speech ..
I am expressing my opinion and supporting it with facts.
I am sorry you do not like that.

Maybe you are the one in need of a long walk?
No mate, MY opinion is that your attitude is offensive, infantile and degrading to all of us here by association, and therefore I'd rather not be seen to in anyway condone it, or you.

If it's not too much for your intellect to grasp I'll let you in on a secret; some of us fly without some ridiculous agenda and simply want this sim to be as accurate as it can be within the engine limitations. And having been in PM contact with two of the TD team and communicated via posts with 2 others, I can tell you they make damn sight more sense than you, and are considerably better mannered. But hell, guess you're the type who's got his way bullying and shouting and tirading his way through life huh? Won't cut the mustard here chum.

And facts?! I saw bugger all in the way of anything remotely factual in your post. In fact it looked remarkably like ill-informed conspiracy driven bluster to me, but hell, perhaps I'm wrong. Please do enlighten me.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-22-2011, 12:33 AM
EJGr.Ost_Caspar EJGr.Ost_Caspar is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 939
Default

Let him do, Fenrir... there is no thing more worse than being wrong and not knowing it.

@xnomad: No, I don't think the idea is that new (although I didn't know that about CoD) - anyone creative in flight sims can have it. I just pointed out, that the approach is better than the choises of the poll and is better displaying, in which direction DT thinks, when it come to solving problems.
__________________

----------------------------------------------
For bugreports, help and support contact:
daidalos.team@googlemail.com

For modelers - The IL-2 standard modeling specifications:
IL-Modeling Bible
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-22-2011, 11:20 PM
trashcanman trashcanman is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenrir View Post
No mate, MY opinion is that your attitude is offensive, infantile and degrading to all of us here by association, and therefore I'd rather not be seen to in anyway condone it, or you.

If it's not too much for your intellect to grasp I'll let you in on a secret; some of us fly without some ridiculous agenda and simply want this sim to be as accurate as it can be within the engine limitations. And having been in PM contact with two of the TD team and communicated via posts with 2 others, I can tell you they make damn sight more sense than you, and are considerably better mannered. But hell, guess you're the type who's got his way bullying and shouting and tirading his way through life huh? Won't cut the mustard here chum.

And facts?! I saw bugger all in the way of anything remotely factual in your post. In fact it looked remarkably like ill-informed conspiracy driven bluster to me, but hell, perhaps I'm wrong. Please do enlighten me.
The Fw190 gunsight bar has been removed - FACT
The justification for this is that it has been calculated due to refraction of light in photographs from external views of the cockpit ... yes I know it sounds crazy but 2 TD members have told me that - FACT

For the record I personally think that the Fw190 gunsight in unmodded IL-2 is probably wrong.

Now, let us look at the P-47 razorback ....

This is not my research however I feel it is solid (sorry for expressing my opinion again ) http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...5351020214/p/1

And yet TD choose to not use their magic on the Razorback Jug ....??? - FACT
I have asked TD people this (oh yes, you aren't the only one!) and they use the NG excuse .... - FACT

This is my perception. I am sorry if my views offend you. Personal insults do not bother me btw so please feel free to continue
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-23-2011, 08:36 AM
EJGr.Ost_Caspar EJGr.Ost_Caspar is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trashcanman View Post
And yet TD choose to not use their magic on the Razorback Jug ....??? - FACT
I have asked TD people this (oh yes, you aren't the only one!) and they use the NG excuse .... - FACT
Republic Aviation (later Fairchild) has nothing to do with NG. I doubt, what you say. Even more I do not know about any request to DT of that topic.

Thanks for the link anyway.
__________________

----------------------------------------------
For bugreports, help and support contact:
daidalos.team@googlemail.com

For modelers - The IL-2 standard modeling specifications:
IL-Modeling Bible
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-23-2011, 08:44 AM
EJGr.Ost_Caspar EJGr.Ost_Caspar is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 939
Default

BTW: 190 vs 37 ... My oppinion is, that the orientation should not be to please the 85%, but to convince the 15% instead. Then the task is done.
__________________

----------------------------------------------
For bugreports, help and support contact:
daidalos.team@googlemail.com

For modelers - The IL-2 standard modeling specifications:
IL-Modeling Bible
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-21-2011, 05:18 AM
Feathered_IV's Avatar
Feathered_IV Feathered_IV is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trashcanman View Post
Voted No.
Team Blueadalos have only nerfed a few RAF aircraft so far.
They should be allowed to focus their time and energy on improving the 109 and 190 still further, enhancing the explosive power of German bombs and fiddling with the Spitfire FM to create yet more mystical anti-torque.
Apparently "refraction" can remove the 190 bar but doesn't work on the P-47 razorback gunsight ....
Imho Oleg has allowed this bunch of chancers to officially mod IL-2 in order to generate sales for CloD by making IL-2 a joke game
When you look at the map textures, bomb doors, AI flyables, 6DoF etc etc etc available in UP in a far more stable format than 4.10 it beggars believe
Team Blueadalos is Olegs secret marketing tool
It seems your personal issues are far beyond the scope of this thread, or perhaps even this forum. I'm curious though, could you explain for me the significance of the "Team Blueadalos" phrase. You use it as if it's some triumph of rapier-like wit and an overpowering intellectual smackdown, so I'm hoping you can explain.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.