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

[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).

[BadAim]

But do you really think that 6DOF as it's implemented already is really more unrealistic than the stock 2Dof? I mean the simple fact is that you can move your head around enough to see around canopy bracing in a real plane, so is perhaps being able to move around too much any more unrealistic than not at all?

Here is my point: were not going to get a perfect implementation in IL2. Are we going to settle for the best we can get, or refuse anything because we can't get exactly what we want?

And I don't think that most people would be any more unhappy with a slightly more restrictive 6DOF than those who see a "cheater" around every corner would be with having it at all.

I guess, I'm just saying that I don't believe that the argument is black and white. Were not talking about the difference between right and wrong here, but the best of whatever compromise we can get.

[Mysticpuma]

Fruitbat posted a great example of 6 DoF from his Youtube channel. It shows just what is possible with it enabled:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKD2a9xDPWc

[JG53Harti]

Originally Posted by Mysticpuma

It shows just what is possible with it enabled:

It shows only that the guy has trouble to shoot down a enemy

[kimosabi]

Originally Posted by JG53Harti

It shows only that the guy has trouble to shoot down a enemy

Just go ahead and try getting a quick kill on Toad. I dare you.

[fruitbat]

lol.

yup i have real trouble shooting down enemies....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzT6eKV4pzo

for the record, the vid that Mysticpuma linked I used 5dof a lot for sure, quite often in it i moved a little bit closer in to see around the cockpit framing, but JAMF is right, i didn't use the vertical head position really, but only because i didn't need to in that plane. Bit different in something like a p38 though....

[JAMF]

Originally Posted by Mysticpuma

Fruitbat posted a great example of 6 DoF from his Youtube channel. It shows just what is possible with it enabled:

Well that was 4DoF, maybe 5 DoF tops. He didn't use the vertical head position axis much. Then again, there aren't that many obstructions that required it.