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

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

6DoF

Its simply unrealistic as its in its present form, you cannot move around that much in a fighter aircraft when strapped in, you are not wearing an inertia belting system in these aircraft you simply cannot move as given by 6DoF.
Any forward movement for gun sights was done by seat adjustment not the pilot leaning forwards.

Zooming forwards and unplucking your eyeballs from your skull and placing them on the canopy, rotating your head almost 180 degrees is worse than the present viewing system.




.

Originally Posted by Bearcat

That is a bogus argument.

At best.

Zoom is and always has been a feature of this sim.. and actually every sim over the past 12 years or so, at least everyone I have flown.. from the moment that macros were possible it was possible to have zoom on a simulated slider... even though zoom is now on a slider.. my zoom is still the way it has been.. with a macro, set at .002 second intervals .. and you can say what misinformed mumbo jumbo you want.. but if you try to fly and fight zoomed in you will die a quick virtual death... Zoom definitely has it's place in any sim.. and that, because it is part of the stock sim and always has been.. even before TIR came out, renders it a non issue.

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.

At the extreme end of the scale

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8i04...eature=related

At the lower/fun end of the scale

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

.

[SEE]

IL1946 embraces difficulty levels. Oleg has frequently stated that he wanted his work to be enjoyed by all.

If 'viewing Realism' is one of the primary requirements before any consideration for the implementation of 6DOF into stock (and applies to 2DOF, fixed pov with regards swivelling to 6) then it must be part of the difficulty options and integrate fully with all other viewing features such as Zoom, FOV, gunsights, etc to ensure a common experience with that 'difficulty' enabled with or without HT. This would be an overwhelming technical challenge (added to resolving the 'glitches') - compromises would have to be made that I am unsure TD and 'purists' would be prepared to accept.

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

I would rather see the work/time spent else where by DT.

IMHO

.

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

[Tolwyn]

Originally Posted by arthursmedley

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

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.

[kimosabi]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

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

.

Your agenda is clear and it explains the stubbornness. I assume you meant my reading comprehension? You're in for a wedgie hombre.

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.

Try flying a plane without the speedbar when both compasses and the turn/slip indicator are obscured by a flightstick.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Originally Posted by EvilJoven

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.

Noone is questioning that.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

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.

At the extreme end of the scale

At the lower/fun end of the scale

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

.

???

Flying a combat aircraft from my desk looking through a 24" diagonal box is not realistic either.. I am not saying that 6DoF should be implemented exactly as it is in the mod packs.... I never said that but it should be implemented.. and it wouldn't be too much work if it were tightened up some .. the work has already been done.. changing a few numbers in the code is not too hard for these guys.. Considering how many people use TIR3 and above in this sim and the fact that it is possible.. to not do it IMO is a mistake. and of course my opinion is far from the only one allowed here.. but it is shared by many..

Originally Posted by Tolwyn

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.

Even that would be better than what is in the stock sim now.. and it is doable.

[BadAim]

I'm not sure that I really want to get into this, but as a fan of 6Dof I suppose I'll risk it......

Isn't the whole argument that 6Dof isn't perfect so it's no good, kinda throwing the baby out with the bathwater? The system in use now is just as wrong, (granted, it was the best we had when Il2 was developed) and 85% of the respondents seem to agree that the 6Dof that is so far available is the better choice.

In the interest of reason I'd be more than happy if DT were to implement a somewhat more restrictive version of 6Dof, but if it isn't practical within the confines of IL2's code (and DT's other constraints) the version that is available now is better than what we've got IMO (and quite a few others).

[Tolwyn]

My "no" vote did have a caveat, and you've hit it.

There is certainly a benefit for a "realistic" 6DOF in the game. To ignore it is exactly throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It would have to be limited (and frankly, I think the "limitations" or, what we call in the business gimbal restrictions would turn a gimmicky thing into a GREAT thing).

My point was that to make it realistic would still not make the majority happy.

Originally Posted by BadAim

I'm not sure that I really want to get into this, but as a fan of 6Dof I suppose I'll risk it......

Isn't the whole argument that 6Dof isn't perfect so it's no good, kinda throwing the baby out with the bathwater? The system in use now is just as wrong, (granted, it was the best we had when Il2 was developed) and 85% of the respondents seem to agree that the 6Dof that is so far available is the better choice.

In the interest of reason I'd be more than happy if DT were to implement a somewhat more restrictive version of 6Dof, but if it isn't practical within the confines of IL2's code (and DT's other constraints) the version that is available now is better than what we've got IMO (and quite a few others).