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

[Gunshi091]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

+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 .

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Originally Posted by Gunshi091

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?

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

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?

The Sutton Harness allowed the pilot to release himself and lean forwards to make panel adjustments.

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/the-...-spitfire.html

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Thanks for the link!

[klem]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

The Sutton Harness allowed the pilot to release himself and lean forwards to make panel adjustments.

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/the-...-spitfire.html

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.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

The Tempest's rear armor plate model was checked by us and it appeared, that it is very much like the original was. Its one of the best cockpit models in game - not only because of the eye candy. There will NO rework of this model.

But maybe PoV, which is quite close to the plate.

[klem]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

The Tempest's rear armor plate model was checked by us and it appeared, that it is very much like the original was. Its one of the best cockpit models in game - not only because of the eye candy. There will NO rework of this model.

But maybe PoV, which is quite close to the plate.

The cockpit is just fine, in fact its great, its only the rear view I have an issue with (well, apart from the lack of the later engine). See the attached photos (Tempest and very similar late Typhoon). The backplate is barely wider than the human head but in IL-2 it is beyond shoulder width.

You could move it further away in the model but if you only move the eyepoint in the existing model won't you just push our faces closer to the gunsight in forward view?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Originally Posted by klem

The backplate is barely wider than the human head but in IL-2 it is beyond shoulder width.

And how did your measure this? The plate has just the correct size, thats our conclusion. Yes, the PoV would move to the front.

[SEE]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

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.

Would that idea include players in Cockpit view using POV hatswitches to also have restrictions on Views, zoom, etc, depending on wether they were strapped in or not?

[Sven]

Originally Posted by SEE

Would that idea include players in Cockpit view using POV hatswitches to also have restrictions on Views, zoom, etc, depending on wether they were strapped in or not?

zooming in and moving your head to the gunsight are 2 different things in IL2.
the hatswitch player will not have restrictions since he cannot move anyway, what restrictions did you have in mind?