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

[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.

[Kubiszko]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

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

Because the board had a guard's head and shoulders, and not obstruct the view.Its logical!For what Tempest or P-47 has drip shield cockpit?For worst visibility or for beter?
I read this forum, rarely write something here and I can not believe how hard UP and Oleg's team assimilation logical arguments.Shame

http://www.hawkertempest.se/WOAnthonyBailey.htm

http://www.hawkertempest.se/JoeKenda...pestphotos.htm

http://www.hawkertempest.se/res/Misc...gs/cutaway.gif

http://www.hawkertempest.se/Cockpit.htm

[klem]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

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

By the simplest means possible. I turn my head and I see that far too much of the rear view is obstructed.

I don't know if the 3D model is accurate and the armour plate to scale compared with the rest of the cockpit or the real aircraft. I don't know if the eyepoint is correct. I don't really care because I understand that you are trying to best represent/compensate for a 6 DOF rear view on essentially a 2D screen. What I am saying is that the result is wrong. The armour plate appears to be too wide. It was essentially narrower than its height and not roughly equal in height and width as it appears to be in the current rear view.

Like Kubisko and other past posters I don't understand why you are having such a hard time accepting this.

TD has added a variety of new aircraft or variants but seem extremely reluctant to improve the rear view of one of the most important RAF aircraft or are at least reluctant to do more than consider "But maybe PoV" which if I understand you correctly will change the forward view. It seems to me that to move the eyepoint forward enough to make a more realistic rear view it would put the forward view eyepoint far too close to the panel/gunsight but only TD will know that when/if they try.

[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?