PDA

View Full Version : IL2/FB wish ... Dear Oleg .. for cockpit bars



RayBanJockey
01-10-2004, 06:13 AM
This is my wish for IL2/FB and all future Combat flight sims:

Semi-transparent (partially invisible) cockpit bars to simulate a pilot with 2 eyes.

Current cockpit view is too restrictive with respect to what real pilots with 2 eyes would have seen. Pilots with 2 eyes will look beyond the cockpit bars and since they have 2 eyes, they will see transparent edges to the cockpit bars (just hold out your hand and look beyond it to see what I mean)

We have gone from 2D cockpits, to 3D cockpits. Now it's time to go to the next level. We can start by making the edges of the cockpit bars semi-tranparent. Oleg, please tell the modelers to do this, as it is easy to implement if you tell them in advance (it's not that hard to do)

Making the pilot view more realistic and thus easier to see stuff outside will make more people play with the cockpit on, and thus appreciate the sim more.

Sincerely, RBJ

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

RayBanJockey
01-10-2004, 06:13 AM
This is my wish for IL2/FB and all future Combat flight sims:

Semi-transparent (partially invisible) cockpit bars to simulate a pilot with 2 eyes.

Current cockpit view is too restrictive with respect to what real pilots with 2 eyes would have seen. Pilots with 2 eyes will look beyond the cockpit bars and since they have 2 eyes, they will see transparent edges to the cockpit bars (just hold out your hand and look beyond it to see what I mean)

We have gone from 2D cockpits, to 3D cockpits. Now it's time to go to the next level. We can start by making the edges of the cockpit bars semi-tranparent. Oleg, please tell the modelers to do this, as it is easy to implement if you tell them in advance (it's not that hard to do)

Making the pilot view more realistic and thus easier to see stuff outside will make more people play with the cockpit on, and thus appreciate the sim more.

Sincerely, RBJ

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

Extreme_One
01-10-2004, 06:41 AM
Yeah. I don't see why this can't or shouldn't be implemented.

Maybe a toggle betwen solid and semi-tranparent would be better though...?

S! Simon
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''

Download the USAAF campaign folder here (http://www.netwings.org/files/fb_missions/USAAF_campaign_folder_v1.21/USAAF_1_2.zip). *NEW* Updated for FB 1.21

http://extremeone.4t.com/images/ex1_soon.jpg

Stefan-R
01-10-2004, 09:21 AM
A adjustable headposition would be better, i think.
I wouldn't like a transparent cockpit, because it doesn't look real. If your eyes are focused on the instrument your eyes don't look "true" the bars. Maybe a button to toggle it - but if transparent bar is active, then in the name of realism the instruments shouldn't be sharpe.

p1ngu666
01-10-2004, 11:04 AM
id rather have a moving head

FW190fan
01-10-2004, 11:49 AM
I like this suggestion.

Despite the fact that a cockpit can be blueprinted in the smallest detail, the basic limitations of our computer monitors really do render peripheral vision non-existant.

Looking at a monitor is like being a horse with blinders on. We can't see anything but straight ahead.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
01-10-2004, 11:50 AM
The Semi-transparent Cockpit Bars are a much better idea then just moving head position cause even a shifted position gives less overall view than transparent bars. This topic has been discussed a while ago but good to bring it back.
And i fully support the idea . Also some configureabel Viewangles not limited to 30 70
90 degrees.

A real 3D view (1 view for each eye) also refraction and reflexion issues considered would be nice for the Next Sim .)

Regards,
Hyperion

RayBanJockey
01-10-2004, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stefan-R:
A adjustable headposition would be better, i think.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
id rather have a moving head<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe when trackIR can detect movement in 3D instead of 2D guys. Otherwise there is no way to move your head besides using buttons. Using buttons to move your head is tedious, and therefore does little to solve the problem which I address.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stefan-R:
I wouldn't like a transparent cockpit, because it doesn't look real. If your eyes are focused on the instrument your eyes don't look "true" the bars. Maybe a button to toggle it - but if transparent bar is active, then in the name of realism the instruments shouldn't be sharpe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are looking at your instuments, then that means most of the time you are looking down and can't even see the cockpit bars. My suggestion leaves way the instruments look unchanged. Pilots look at their instruments. They look beyond their cockpit bars. Pilots who have only 1 eye are not allowed to fly.



The 3 current factors which render current "cockpit view" unrealistic are:

1) Limited field of view due to the monitor (think of a dog with a cone on it's head)

-Oleg can start by implementing true 16:9 aspect ratio monitor support. This is virtually non-existant in current PC video games but is making way in such venues as XBox where more and more people have widescreen (16:9) TV's. Currently, those who have 16:9 monitors and set their resolution in IL2/FB to match, recieve a 4:3 aspect ratio with the top and bottom chopped off (not a true 16:9 .. just a hacked 4:3)


2) Inability of the pilot to move his head in 3 dimensions intuitively "i.e. without having think about it/push a button".

-this can only be solved by a track IR unit that could recognize 3D movenents of the head, and with corresponding game support. (too far into the future to even suggest)


3) Lack of stereo vision that would render much of the vertical cockpit bars transparent when looking beyond them.

-This is the problem which I address in this thread. It is a simple problem to solve if the cockpit modelers begin their work with the idea in mind.



If you still do not understand how this would make the game better, feel free to ask.

Sincerely, RBJ

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

necrobaron
01-10-2004, 01:16 PM
I agree with this. Until we have VR flight sims or something,RBJ's idea is the best way to replicate peripheral vision and depth perception....

Capt_Haddock
01-10-2004, 01:36 PM
From a purely funtional point of view I have to admit that the transparent bars would certainly do the job.

But I personally wouldn't like a transparent cockpit. Even if it's just part of it.

I admire too much the effort and detail that goes in those cockpits. Making them transparent would ruin for me the suspension of disbelief.

I'd rather have lean keys like in some FPS games. In fact moving the head sideways would be brilliant when taxiing or even landing. Specially if BoB planes like the Spit have openable side doors.

Not as useful as transparent bars, but nicer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19bannerh.jpg
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19banner.jpg

LuftKuhMist
01-10-2004, 02:25 PM
I don't want.

Do you know that a transparent poly costs 4 times the calculation of a non transparent one?

Besides, you can't see through thos bars because your two eyes are IN the cockpit. To have this effect you would have to have one eye each side of the bar.

Stefan-R
01-10-2004, 02:51 PM
I don't like the idea: better cockpitview at any costs.
Sure a better cockpitview is nice for dogfighting, but the feeling in a transparent cockpit wouldn't be the same.
I've flown the Bf109G6 with its laaaaaarge bars above the frontwindow.
I also doubt that it is possible to see a very small dot thrue the transparent bars.
And again the point: it just looks unreal.

necrobaron
01-10-2004, 03:58 PM
I thought RBJ just wanted transparent bars,not the entire cockpit.....

Platypus_1.JaVA
01-10-2004, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by necrobaron:
I thought RBJ just wanted transparent bars,not the entire cockpit.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ow come on... you know RBJ. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Didn't we all hear him shouting for faster trim, icons and padlock?

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php

necrobaron
01-10-2004, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by necrobaron:
I thought RBJ just wanted transparent bars,not the entire cockpit.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ow come on... you know RBJ. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Didn't we all hear him shouting for faster trim, icons and padlock?

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ElAurens
01-10-2004, 07:01 PM
Once a gamer always a gamer I guess...


The idea is simply silly. There are already too many arcade servers/settings in FB.

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

FW190fan
01-10-2004, 07:46 PM
Why people who think they are flying so-called "full-real" feel so threatened by this concept is beyond me. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

robban75
01-10-2004, 08:21 PM
I like this idea very much RBJ, it will greatly add to the fun of this game!http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

ElAurens
01-10-2004, 08:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Why people who think they are flying so-called "full-real" feel so threatened by this concept is beyond me. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Threatened? Hardly. I just think the idea is well, stupid. Why not just fly in "Wonder Woman" view and remove that annoying airplane all together? And besides, even if Oleg did this, (which he won't), it would be a selectable option. Hence it would never be used on my servers...

And there are things we need far more than this little arcade feature...

Just the way I see it....

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

RayBanJockey
01-10-2004, 08:46 PM
I understand (sadly) how any idea no matter how good it is, always gets shot down by someone in this particular forum, and I understand (sadly) how some people are on a mission to just disagree with whatever I say, however I have not seen a single argument to the contrary that makes sense.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt_Haddock:
From a purely funtional point of view I have to admit that the transparent bars would certainly do the job.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not only is it functional, but also more realistic.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I admire too much the effort and detail that goes in those cockpits. Making them transparent would ruin for me the suspension of disbelief.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would admire the cockpit more so if the modelers put a little more extra time into them to make the vertical cockpit bars look more like a pilot would see them in real life if he was looking beyond them. I would be like "Wow! Now this is a fine looking cockpit!"
As I have said before, pilots do not look at the cockpit bars, they look beyond the cockpit bars. (and they have 2 eyes, not just 1)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I'd rather have lean keys like in some FPS games.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That would be nice however it is only marginally related to the concept of bifocal vision, and how it renders cockpit bars located within a few feet of the pilots head when scanning the skies beyond them (what fighter pilots do).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftKuhMist:
Do you know that a transparent poly costs 4 times the calculation of a non transparent one?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If it is only 4 times, then this is good news. Vertical cockpit bars are only a marginal percentage of the resources required to display an entire cockpit. The performance hit would be insignificant.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Besides, you can't see through thos bars because your two eyes are IN the cockpit. To have this effect you would have to have one eye each side of the bar.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I see you do not understand the concept of which I speak. You DO have one eye on each side of every vertical bar (with respect to your view) Simply hold your hand outstreched, and look at a point 300 yards beyond your hand. You will notice that the ammount of your view that is blocked by your hand is only half of your hand's width. The right and left edges of your hand are rendered semi-tranparent (about 90% transparent) Should you close one eye, you will see that all the sudden your hand becomes a rather large solid obstruction compared to before. Since pilots have 2 eyes and are scanning the skies, not looking at the cockpit bars, they will see much more than what this sim currently implements with it's simulation of a pilot with only one eye.

Another example is when a FW190 pilot looks straight up. In the game he sees a solid black cockpit bar running from the top to the bottom of the screen, but a real FW190 pilot would see only a thin strip of solid cockpit bar, with the edges being semi-transparent.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stefan-R:
I don't like the idea: better cockpitview at any costs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The only cost would be in the time spent doing certain cockpit bars to make them look more realistic with respect to a pilot trying to view his outside world.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Sure a better cockpitview is nice for dogfighting, but the _feeling_ in a transparent cockpit wouldn't be the same.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is not the entire cockpit which I refer to. It is only the cockpit bars which run parallel with respect to the vertical axis of the pilot's head. You are right that it wouldn't feel the same. You would instead feel like you have 2 eyes, instead of 1.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I also doubt that it is possible to see a very small dot thrue the transparent bars.
And again the point: it just looks unreal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It would be no different than seeing a dot through your gunsight. It would look real because I am talking about semi-transparent edges that reflect what a pilot with 2 eyes would see. I am NOT talking "invisible" edges. They will be semi-tranparent thus you could still see that scratch on the cockpit bar if you choose to concentrate on it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Once a _gamer_ always a gamer I guess...

The idea is simply silly. There are already too many _arcade_ servers/settings in FB.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I refer you to the subsequent post by FW190fan, and the first paragraph of this post. (and the entire body of this post, for that matter, since you seem to not understand the concept of realism, only "difficulty and restriction")

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

[This message was edited by RayBanJockey on Sat January 10 2004 at 07:55 PM.]

LuftKuhMist
01-10-2004, 08:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Why people who think they are flying so-called "full-real" feel so threatened by this concept is beyond me. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not a question of full real, it is a question of aesthetism and frame drop. Believe me, if you make cockpit bars transparent, you will have major glitches at bar junctions and such. Each polygon that will be fully or partially transparent will be the equivalent of 4 normal polys. In complex cockpits with many stuts, you will notice a SIGNIFICANT frame drop. Besides YOU DON'T HAVE any reason to make them transparent. Do you see through the bars of your car? No. You might as well ask for blur or motion blur, which will definatively kill your gameplay on your current machine.

That's why I don't like the idea at all. Transparency is heavy stuff in 3D. Besides it will be absolutely ugly.

LuftKuhMist
01-10-2004, 08:57 PM
RBJ, 4 times costs a lot. There are many polys in the FW190 struts, for instance, because they are a little roundish. Let's say 300 polys, you multiply that by four, you get 1200. In more "strutty" planes, like the BF110 that we will get, it will be worst. Heinkel 111... I wonder...

If you want to have a smooth gradient in the transparency, you will have to add another mask in the game probably... This said, I never worked on that engine, so I might be wrong.

Recon_609IAP
01-10-2004, 09:03 PM
semi-transparent cockpit struts would be nice.

I don't want more than the struts being transparent though - and only because looking around a strut is possible - seeing down through the aircraft would not.

but, I agree with post - semi-translucent cockpit bars would be nice

(edit: I fly full real 90% of the time)

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

Recon_609IAP
01-10-2004, 09:12 PM
"Besides YOU DON'T HAVE any reason to make them transparent"

Sure they do.

1. there is no lean - you can lean in your car can't you? When driving, do you find yourself thinking "I will wait for that car to pass cause I can't see him through my car 'struts'? LOL no!

2. even if there was a lean feature - would leaning to glance at a car going by take 3 key presses?

I have TrackIR, that solves the 'not needing hands or thumb to move your head' - doesn't fix 'leaning'.

The reason people think of translucent is because they have given up expecting a game to properly modelled accurate head/body movements in a flying simulation - all are attempts to duplicate, but this proposal takes a different approach in saying that instead of solving with leaning, solve with a view that does what leaning does: the eyes coordinate with the head/body to maintain contact of an object even as it passes behind another object - the mind is very powerful in this, by working with the eyes to track. Additionally, we are tracking objects of course, in real life at a 1:1 ratio - not a 32:1 ratio that FB gives us.

My 2 cents

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

RayBanJockey
01-10-2004, 09:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftKuhMist:
It's not a question of full real, it is a question of aesthetism and frame drop. Believe me, if you make cockpit bars transparent, you will have major glitches at bar junctions and such. Each polygon that will be fully or partially transparent will be the equivalent of 4 normal polys. In complex cockpits with many stuts, you will notice a SIGNIFICANT frame drop.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is simply untrue, a "doomsday" prediction if you will. I wish I knew the web address but there is a sim that had the ENTIRE cockpit semi-transparent and it ran just fine. Your gunsight in this game is semi-transparent and there are no "glitches" to speak of. Adding this feature to the vertical elements of cockpit bars would only result in a marginal resource hit. The vast majority of resources when rendering cockpits go to the moving parts: the dials, stick, pedals, levers, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Besides YOU DON'T HAVE any reason to make them transparent. Do you see through the bars of your car? No. You might as well ask for blur or motion blur, which will definatively kill your gameplay on your current machine.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, you are not being logical, and just "thowing things on the wall to see if they stick" You DO see tranparent edges to the near A-pillar in your car when you look in the distance beyond them. This is because you have two eyes. Refer to my example in my earlier post about simply looking at a point 300 yards beyond your outstreched hand.

Bars that run right to left of the pilots view would have no semi-transparency. Bars that run up and down to the pilots view would have the most semi-transparency to their edges. Bars that run diagonal would have half the ammount of semi-transparent edges (then that of the vertical bars) In all cases, the frame rate hit would be almost nil .. not even close to when you look down at your guages and the floor.

Your frame rate predictions are untrue, as it is nothing more than a gunsight effect and other sims have done the ENTIRE cockpit in semi-tranparency with no problems.



Recon_609IAP, I understand about "leaning" and how it is an additional restriction to a simulated pilots view. However the semi-tranparency I am refering to is caused by the simulation of a pilot with 2 eyes, instead of 1. Vertical bars located close to a pilots head are rendered semitransparent (on the right and left edge) when a pilot with 2 eyes looks beyond them.

As far as I'm concerned, it would be the most beautiful cockpit rendition ever.


http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

ROSHKO_69.GIAP
01-11-2004, 03:54 AM
I totally agree with RBJ on this one.

It is annoying to follow a bandit in a high-G - and then see him 'hide' behind a strut and you can't do anything to get him back into view.

Also when you try to line up on a bomber - or flying escort...

If the semi-transparent struts would bring the system to it's knees, how does the dirty cockpit-glass work without doing the same thing ?

C!

Roshko

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)

Capt_Haddock
01-11-2004, 04:43 AM
This thing kept me thinking...

What you really need is depth of field.
If you were sitting in the real cockpit you could decide to focus your sight on the cockpit bars (and they'd become solid and clear), or you could focus on the far distance and then all the cockpit would become blurry and demi-transparent around the thin bars.

Don't know how would you do this (specially with today's 3D hardware), but that'll give you a more realistic feeling: A sharp and detailed cokpit when you are looking close, and a better outside view when you are looking far away.

A bit like this, but more transparent to simulate the stereoscopic vision.
http://www.cloudnet.com/~djohnson/gunsite1.jpg

These were the kind of special effects the 3DFX guys were working on before being swallowed by Nvidia. Shame.

BTW. Have you seen Xtreme Air Racing? I think this is what you are looking for...
http://www.pocketpclife.co.uk/images/features/102102xar019.jpg

I see the point, but I just don't like it, sorry http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19bannerh.jpg
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19banner.jpg

brucevonlodi
01-11-2004, 04:59 AM
I totally agree with RBJ and I have been asking for something like this for as long as IL2 has been released. If transparency is a frame rate problem then How about no bars? To satisfy everyone how about replacing the the "no cockpit" option with the "no cockpit bars" option? Or-- add a no cockpit bars option to the selection of view?

NegativeGee
01-11-2004, 05:40 AM
I think transparent cockpit bars are a reasonable compromise considering the existing game. Its highly unlikely that any work will be done with IL-2/FB to introduce a moveable head, which would require far more work I imagine.

Like other realism options for online play, it could be set up by the server host, on or off. I find other, current realism options (like icons, external view on) far more of a compromise when I want to fly "full real", so I don't see why transparent bars would be such an issue. As always, you could set your own game up with your particular preferences.

Of course, the BoB is different. Olegs' already hinted that a moveable head is the aim there.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

LEXX_Luthor
01-11-2004, 12:17 PM
I like RBJ's trying to draw attention to the vertical bars. The big horizontal bar atop the Fb109 canopy would not be affected by this.

Better and more simple to model human binocular vision when focused at distances far outside of cockpit, with two (2) uniformly transparent struts in place of one, but solid when the two images overlap and that happens when the bars are very thick or the bars are at an angle to RBJ's vertical---the Fb109 horizontal top bar would be an extreme limiting example of this, were the angle is 90 degrees and so the overlap is total and thus there is only one solid image.

To be honest, they need to put programming effort on making the AI environmentally aware of the clouds and the sun, as well as even putting clouds and sun as active objects in the game (in FB they are NOT as they are pure grafix routine that do not communicate with the game engine).

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

RayBanJockey
01-11-2004, 12:25 PM
Once again , this is NOT a moveable head issue. It will be many years before a sim figures out how to make a moveable head that does not require the tedious pressing of buttons. Any moveable head in BoB will do ZERO to solve this problem.

This is a Bifocal vision issue. Pilots do not look at their cockpit bars. They look beyond them. Since they have 2 eyes, only half of a vertical bar will be appear solid. The left and right edges will appear be semi-transparent (90% transparency)

This picture:
http://www.pocketpclife.co.uk/images/features/102102xar019.jpg
Is a start and the general idea. Somewhat crude, however.
The top bar that goes horizontal will only be transparent on its far right and left edges. The vertical bars will have a solid part in the middle, and be transparent on the left and right edges.

It will not be an "option". Making it an option would be as silly as making an option for a "pilot with only 1 arm".

If done right it will be the most beautiful cockpit ever created. And far more real than the current "one-eyed full real".

The good news is that it's not that hard to do. Since we are getting on the ball early with Oleg, we can hopefully see this in "Battle of Britain" (the next generation Maddox Combat Flight Simulator)

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

NegativeGee
01-11-2004, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RayBanJockey:
This is a Bifocal vision issue. Pilots do not look at their cockpit bars. They look beyond them. Since they have 2 eyes, only half of a vertical bar will be appear solid. The left and right edges will appear be semi-transparent (90% transparency)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is only correct to a degree, there is a twist to it. If the eye is focused on an object in the distance with a (for purpose of an example) bar in the foreground in their field of view, the steroscopic vison of a human will make the bar appear "transparent" to a degree (in effect, the superimposing of one image onto another from the second eye's viewpoint).

However, if the object is directly behind the bar, the eye will not simply focus on that object and have the transparancy effect. As well as the transparency effect, the viewer will percieve a double image off the object in the distance (not to mention a headache after doing it for too long http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif).

Plus, the width of the bar plays a role (too wide a bar, and you won't get the effect at all), the size of the object under observation, and the distance from eye to bar and bar to object. The 90% transparancy you state depends much on this.

Try it at home, or next time you are driving, although I recommend doing so while a passenger http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Of course, moving ones head a little is the best solution.....

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

RayBanJockey
01-11-2004, 01:12 PM
I think you are confusing the 90% transparency of which I state, to the entire bar being 90%invisible.

When I say 90%, that is only refering to how transparent the transparent part is to be rendered.

No matter how wide the bar, the effect will still be there along the left and right edges. When looking beyond a single finger, you won't have any solid part at all. When looking beyond 2 hands side by side, there is still transparency along the edges.

The simplest way to do it is to make 2 inches semi-tranparent (90% clear) on the left and right edges of every bar. Done deal. The 2 inches is measured horizontally only (to the viewer)

Moving one's head in BoB will be a cumbersone set of key commands (like in CFS3). It does nothing to render cockpit bars as a pilot with 2 eyes would see when looking beyond them by default.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

[This message was edited by RayBanJockey on Sun January 11 2004 at 12:25 PM.]

NegativeGee
01-11-2004, 01:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RayBanJockey:
I think you are confusing the 90% transparency of which I state, to the entire bar being 90%invisible.

When I say 90%, that is only refering to how transparent the transparent part is to be rendered.

No matter how wide the bar, the effect will still be there along the left and right edges. When looking beyond a single finger, you won't have any solid part at all. When looking beyond 2 hands side by side, there is still transparency along the edges.

_The simplest way to do it is to make 2 inches semi-tranparent (90% clear) on the left and right edges of every bar. Done deal. The 2 inches is measured horizontally only (to the viewer)_

Moving one's head in BoB will be a cumbersone set of key commands (like in CFS3). It does nothing to render cockpit bars as a pilot with 2 eyes would see when looking beyond them by default.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, okay with regard to the 90% transparancy phrase, sorry for the confusion http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I was getting at the portion of the width of the bar that is seen. This is not set, and depends on the factors I outlined above. The width of the bar is very significant- once this approches the distance between the two eyes the amount of percieved tranparancy will get less. When it is at or beyond that distance, it will get less still, and become difficult to discern.
Once again the separation between the eye and the bar is important, the greater the distance, the sooner the perceived tranparancy at the edges will lessen, for a bar of given thickness.

As to what a head move control maybe like in practice.... we will wait and see. I would imagine it could be put on a hat switch..... simply forwards/backwards, left/right. Ultimately, it very much depends on the skill of the designers in how they can implement the idea.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

RayBanJockey
01-11-2004, 02:10 PM
It's not a percentage of the bar that should be trasparent, it's simply about 2 inches on every right and left edge. You could look at the corner of a wall and see the transparency, so it's not about the thickness of the bar.

The front bars of the cockpit would have 1.5 inches on their right and left edges. (1.5 inches being measured purely horizontally)

The bars on the right and left of the cockpit (if present) would be a little closer to his eyes so make them have 2.0 inches of transparency on each side.

The bar on the roof of the FW canopy would have 2.0 inches on each side as well (when the pilot looks straight up)

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

LEXX_Luthor
01-11-2004, 02:51 PM
Okay RBJ, but are we willing to have two (2) bars for every real bar? This would be Awsum. If we wanna talk realism, this is the way to go.

Some bars, like the ones in the Brewster, would be totally seperate images, as the bars are so thin they have no overlap in the images the eye sees. So for the thin bars, depending on angle from vertical of course, we need two transparent bars.

Also, the percentage of transparency is an interesting issue. For one thing, a single eye cannot see as well as two eyes together.

As far as not "focusing" on a distant object that is hidden from both eyes, the eyes are focused at infinity anyway when searching for distang targets.


RBJ:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It will not be an "option". Making it an option would be as silly as making an option for a "pilot with only 1 arm".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Zero ACE Saburo Sakai only had one eye later in the Pacific WAR. It did lead even him to misidentify a flight of 16 Hellcats and he tried to join formation with them.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

NegativeGee
01-11-2004, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RayBanJockey:
It's not a percentage of the bar that should be trasparent, it's simply about 2 inches on every right and left edge. You could look at the corner of a wall and see the transparency, so it's not about the thickness of the bar.

The front bars of the cockpit would have 1.5 inches on their right and left edges. (1.5 inches being measured purely horizontally)

The bars on the right and left of the cockpit (if present) would be a little closer to his eyes so make them have 2.0 inches of transparency on each side.

The bar on the roof of the FW canopy would have 2.0 inches on each side as well (when the pilot looks straight up)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thickness of the bar is significant, as I stated previously. You could not have set thicknesses of transparency effect. You would have to take into account the thickness of the in each airplane, and the distance they are from the modelled eye postion. In addition, you would need to consider the angle of inclination of the cockpit frame (quite significant in the FW 190 front window, to use your example) as few of the bars are actually normal to the pilots plane of view.

To continue with your example of the FW-190, there would be no effect with the roof bar if the pilot had inclined their head straight backwards. They would have to rotate their head onto its side while looking up (which incidently is not going to help with their headache), as it is occurs when an object in the field of vision is not parallel with both eyes.

Also, this effect is only percieved at the point focus for the eyes.... it is not applicable to the whole field of vision. By your rationale of presenting it realistically, you would need a way of activating the transparancy, depending on the current centre point of the screen display.

To be honest, I doubt the "transparancy effect" would ever be very significant to a combat pilot. I think it is ok to justify an option making cockpit bars transparent for the reason that FB/BoB (possibly) won't have a moveable head, but not for the optical effect that you are proposing.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Recon_609IAP
01-11-2004, 03:58 PM
Some of the aircraft are nice in that when you toggle from gunsight and back - the bars shift enough that you can 'see around them'.

I use that all the time.

problem with something like the 190 - they don't shift enough.

I find this shift is very good - just needs to be in all the aircraft.

Personally - that would fix the issue for me. Create enough shift from gunsight and not in gunsight to allow the bars to move to get another view.

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

boohaa
01-11-2004, 04:07 PM
RBJ I totally agree with you on this head tilt button being a waste of programming time.More time should be spent on reducing the bars in cockpit so that we can see around them better.you are right about the vertical bars being the ones that need treatment.

Now how about just having the vertical bars reduced dramaticaly in thickness to simulate what one would see beyond the bar.This would be easier on the fps than the semi transparent edges.Now the only thing Oleg would need to do is have it so that when in cockpit the bars dont have to be matched up with the outside cockpit bars.What I mean is that right now if you were to make the bars in-cockpit veruy thin,youll see the outside models bars covering up the area anyway.Does this make sense RBJ?

LEXX_Luthor
01-11-2004, 04:35 PM
NegativeGee made a booboo:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also, this effect (binocular vision) is only percieved at the point focus for the eyes.... it is not applicable to the whole field of vision. By your rationale of presenting it realistically, you would need a way of activating the transparancy, depending on the current centre point of the screen display.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First, no its not. Second, the center point of vision is where the simmer's eyes are looking on the computer monitor. Its common oversights like this that make binocular vision a fascinating subject to watch develop on flight sim webboards.


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif boohaa Whines like Japanese Fighter Pilot:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>RBJ I totally agree with you on this head tilt button being a waste of programming time. More time should be spent on reducing the bars in cockpit so that we can see around them better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Japanese aircraft manufactureres listened to the pilots' Whining and the solution to "reduce" cockpit bars was to manufacture A5M and Ki27 without the canopy. Pilot Whines about cockpit bars were never solved until the bubble canopies. This is another reason this subject is so Fertile on flight sim webboards. The computer flight simmers Whine the exact same way that real fighter pilots whined.

Hopefully, Oleg has more sense than Japanese aircraft manufacturers and never listens to flight simmers, and instead makes TWO TRANSPARENT IMAGES OF EVERY COCKPIT BAR to see through (solid when the images overlap however).

"reducing" haha no~way~no that is just "cockpit off" and Oleg should increase the bars to double their number. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

starfighter1
01-11-2004, 11:05 PM
hi,
first of all let's start with the correct height of pilots view in virtual cocpit view design of the game's camera view itself compare near to real piltots view.

second a corecct 3D Max design of perspective and armored windscreen including the size of cockpit bars..

third a correct height of revi and gyroscope near to real pilots eyes view


Next steps to the 3D view + 3D tech by Track IR in next sim at the background of 64 bit programmed software + special hardware are usefull in near future.

transparent bars (as in X-plane for example) is far away from real view and a gimmick to test other features in a sim but not usefull in a combatsim...

by the way : other features to more flexible views like in 'LockOn' are usefull too and mybe tweakable in FB if the developer opens the chance by a patch

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRtypen/FRfotmil/EF2000Dk.GIF

RayBanJockey
01-11-2004, 11:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Okay RBJ, but are we willing to have two (2) bars for every real bar? This would be Awsum. If we wanna talk realism, this is the way to go.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. I am not willing to go that far. You have to draw the line somewhere. If you have such "2 bars" then you also have to attach them to the cockpit, which would present too much difficulties if you just want the cockpit "body" to remain the same.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Some bars, like the ones in the Brewster, would be totally seperate images, as the bars are so thin they have no __overlap__ in the images the eye sees. So for the thin bars, depending on angle from vertical of course, we need two transparent bars.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Such thin bars under my suggestion would be as before, but rendered completely semi-transparent (if they were vertical to the view and thin enough)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also, the percentage of transparency is an interesting issue. For one thing, a single eye cannot see as well as two eyes together.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When you hold your hand out and look beyond, the tranparency shade you see is quite clear. I would say it's about 90% clear.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As far as not "focusing" on a distant object that is hidden from both eyes, the eyes are focused at infinity anyway when searching for distang targets.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correct. When looking for things outside of the cockpit the distances your are looking are far enough to be considered "infinity" (triangle formed between distant objects and your 2 eyes has 2 angles that are 99.9% right angles)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
The thickness of the bar is significant, as I stated previously. You could not have set thicknesses of transparency effect. You would have to take into account the thickness of the in each airplane, and the distance they are from the modelled eye postion. In addition, you would need to consider the angle of inclination of the cockpit frame (quite significant in the FW 190 front window, to use your example) as few of the bars are actually normal to the pilots plane of view.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The only factor that matters is how far each part of the cockpit bar is from the head of the pilot. The closer the bar is to the pilot's head, the more area of transparencey there will be. The ammount of transparency (1 to 3 inches) is not expressed as a percentage of the bar. It is expressed as how many inches on the right and left side to take off the bar. These inches are measured in the pure horizontal plane of the pilots view. (aka right-to-left) A diagonal bar will appear to have less area of transparency (and it will), however the distance of the transparency when measured from pure right to left will be the same had the identical bar been vertical.

A bar that is horizontal to the viewer will appear solid, except for it's far left and right edges.

A bar that is vertical to the viewer will have a transparent edge that runs on both sides of it the whole way.

The ammount of transparency, in inches, depends on how far away it is from the head of the pilot. The furthur it is away, the less area of transparency there is. The variance is about 1 to 3 inches.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
To continue with your example of the FW-190, there would be no effect with the roof bar if the pilot had inclined their head straight backwards. They would have to rotate their head onto its side while looking up (which incidently is not going to help with their headache), as it is occurs when an object in the field of vision is not parallel with both eyes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When you are in the FW, and you look straight up, you see a bar that runs from the top of the screen to the bottom. Since this bar runs vertical to the field of view, it will recieve the maximum ammount of tranparency.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also, this effect is only percieved at the point focus for the eyes.... it is not applicable to the whole field of vision. By your rationale of presenting it realistically, you would need a way of activating the transparancy, depending on the current centre point of the screen display.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While it would be extremely nice to implement it as something that would fade in and out as a vertex shader effect, it would be only noticable when you do the following sequence:

Look up right...Look Up...look up left
(or the opposite)

In this sequence the cockpit bar of the FW would appear to "rotate" in the eyes of the viewer. During such rotation the ammount of transparency would go through phase.

Since this is such a trivial occurence, and the ammount of programming to pull it off would be far greater, it is better to just simply set the ammount of tranparency to the edges of the bars, in permanent fashon.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
To be honest, I doubt the "transparancy effect" would ever be very significant to a combat pilot. I think it is ok to justify an option making cockpit bars transparent for the reason that FB/BoB (possibly) won't have a moveable head, but not for the optical effect that you are proposing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Given the trifecta of limitations imposed upon the viewer of a PC cockpit, I think this would have a highly noticable impact on total field of view, as well as increase the realism.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
Some of the aircraft are nice in that when you toggle from gunsight and back - the bars shift enough that you can 'see around them'.

I use that all the time.

problem with something like the 190 - they don't shift enough.

I find this shift is very good - just needs to be in all the aircraft.

Personally - that would fix the issue for me. Create enough shift from gunsight and not in gunsight to allow the bars to move to get another view.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pressing a button to shift your view is a one time occurence. It solves the problem which is the topic of this thread as much as a grain of sand fills a bucket.

You seem to be in favor of making things harder, instead of more realistic. "Just keep tapping a button" is not a valid suggestion.

More realistic than your suggestion would be to set a button to a high rate of autorepeat, and then use scotch tape to permanently hold it down.

I like my idea better, and so do the majority.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by boohaa:
RBJ I totally agree with you on this head tilt button being a waste of programming time.More time should be spent on reducing the bars in cockpit so that we can see around them better.you are right about the vertical bars being the ones that need treatment.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you. My goal is to make this flight sim better and more realistic, not harder.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Now how about just having the vertical bars reduced dramaticaly in thickness to simulate what one would see beyond the bar.This would be easier on the fps than the semi transparent edges.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Reducing the thickness of the bars is not good. My goal is to keep the integrity of the dimensions of the cockpit, yet simulate the transparencies when looking beyond the cockpit bars that real pilots would see.

Do not believe what people say about this hurting FPS. If that were true then this game:

would be stuttering like mad, no? The amount of CPU/GPU resources to accomplish this task would be only a tiny fraction of what the much more complicated parts of the cockpit that are already in existence, take.

Here is to Oleg Maddox informing his cockpit modelers on a simple yet ingenious way to improve the cockpit view, so that more players will want to enjoy them.

[img]http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

[This message was edited by RayBanJockey on Sun January 11 2004 at 10:44 PM.]

[This message was edited by RayBanJockey on Sun January 11 2004 at 10:47 PM.]

starfighter1
01-12-2004, 03:21 AM
hi,
Ok in general this transparent gimmick could be a option..
but may I ask: when do developers and cockpit designers start with the design of virtual cockpit view to virtual pc-combatfighters compare near to real pilots view?

nice design of penals by looking at this in a 'gnomish sitting situation' would be also wrong in FB by using the transparent feature.

Example in actual sim like LockOn: the view in the A-10 is quite more to real things ..but you can tweak it more to this by changing some figures in the cfg file.

On the other hand the virtual pilot view in the F-15c + Su-27/33/Mig-29 is more down in the height (nearly 5,5 view degree) than in real.
There was a answer by the developers ED in the past as ..' better control of the instruments etc...it's a compromise ..'
Anyway: everyone can use the num/0 key to com close to the instrument panel to get a good overview..in this jetsim.
Another example is Strike Fighters P1..

At FB the developers told us that the designed views are correct compare to blueprints..

Hey man.. the developer of LockOn are telling more of the truth about theire design in the game's camera view system.

Conclusion: however looking to other features like 'transparent' cockpit design the base is the correct modelled heigt of pilots view in the camera view system of the game and even this compare to different types of plane.

The so called 'one camera view system' to all planes in IL2/FB is based on the main plane design of the IL-2. But also this view in game is a little to low as a part of compromise for better viewing to instruments and panel.

So don't mix it up at all and come back the roots and base of cockpit design running on pc-desktop systems and how to improve and fix it in the running game.

The base of future progress in this field needs a structural selfcriticism by developers and designers even not only in FB.

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRtypen/FRfotmil/EF2000Dk.GIF

01-12-2004, 04:26 AM
Just give us programmable head positions.

End of story. You don't see not a single person complaining about visibility, with this scheme.

NegativeGee
01-12-2004, 04:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
NegativeGee made a booboo:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also, this effect _(binocular vision)_ is only percieved at the point focus for the eyes.... it is not applicable to the whole field of vision. By your rationale of presenting it realistically, you would need a way of activating the transparancy, depending on the current centre point of the screen display.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First, no its not. Second, the center point of vision is where the simmer's eyes are looking on the computer monitor. Its common oversights like this that make binocular vision a fascinating subject to watch develop on flight sim webboards.
Hopefully, Oleg has more sense than Japanese aircraft manufacturers and never listens to flight simmers, and instead makes TWO TRANSPARENT IMAGES OF EVERY COCKPIT BAR to see through (solid when the images overlap however).

"reducing" haha no~way~no that is just "cockpit off" and Oleg should increase the bars to double their number. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clarification: insert "due to" before binocular vision, I was refering to the tranparency as perceived by the viewer.

The idea for two sets of cockpit bars sounds a good approach to representing the transparency effect (if you were to approximate what a real person may see) but it poses the problem of increasing the polygon count that the cockpit has.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Originally posted by RBJ:
The only factor that matters is how far each part of the cockpit bar is from the head of the pilot. The closer the bar is to the pilot's head, the more area of transparencey there will be. The ammount of transparency (1 to 3 inches) is not expressed as a percentage of the bar. It is expressed as how many inches on the right and left side to take off the bar. These inches are measured in the pure horizontal plane of the pilots view. (aka right-to-left) A diagonal bar will appear to have less area of transparency (and it will), however the distance of the transparency when measured from pure right to left will be the same had the identical bar been vertical.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said before, the thickness of the bar is significant, as its inclination (as this dictates horizontal thickness, relative to the viewers plane of vision) and distance from the viewer.

If the bar is past a certain thickness, the viewer will not perceive much (if any) "transparency" at the edges of the bar if they try to focus past it when in their centre of view. The greater the distance that a bar of a given thickness is from the viewer, the less the transparency at the edges will be as the two sets of images move closer together (Plus there is still issue that the viewer will see a double image if they are able to do so).

This is easy to test for yourself, at home.... all you need is a mirror to focus on, and "bars" of varying thickness to try focus past.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

SpinSpinSugar
01-12-2004, 06:01 AM
RBJ: "Maybe when trackIR can detect movement in 3D instead of 2D guys. Otherwise there is no way to move your head besides using buttons. Using buttons to move your head is tedious, and therefore does little to solve the problem which I address."

With reference to the above, if you are a TrackIR user (I'm not sure if you've swallowed your pride and taken the plunge there or not) then you could easily use whatever-it-was-you-used-before-to-look-around to control your head position in 3D. Be it hatswitch, trackball, mouse. If such a feature was available, and if all cockpits were truly 3D, not merely 2D representations.

This would also solve "I can't see my compass behind this cockpit obstruction" issues.

However, I must say I largely agree with you on the need to do some serious thinking on improving the 3D world representation of the pilot on a 2D screen.

I for one though would never be happy with permanently transparent bars.

a) It would, as many feel, look goofy if it's fixed that way.
b) If you focus on a cockpit bar in real life, it's solid. The only time it would not be is if you are unfocused on that particular depth of field (i.e. looking at a bomber 300 yards away, as you suggest). When doing instrument scans, fiddling with the gunsight, etc., you're going to have solid bars, even in your vision's periphery.

Hence the only suggestion I would subscribe to with regard to any transparency is that one mentioned earlier in this thread, where you could control the depth of field manually using your hatswitch or whatever. Or, maybe, a sort of semi-intelligent eyeball-padlock that did that automatically whenever you were looking at an aerial target or fixed ground feature. I've no idea if that sort of thing is practical, however.

Cheers,

SSS

HansKnappstick
01-12-2004, 06:15 AM
In order to represent it "fully realistically", two sets of pictures for the _whole_cockpit_ would be needed (at least when the instruments panel is not in the center of view). This would produce some ugly effects at the joints between the canopy bars and the cockpit. The RBJ's suggestion is a nice trade-off to allow seeing around the vertical bars and leaving everything else useful and aesthetical.

I support this suggestion, if my support counts anything.

HansKnappstick
01-12-2004, 06:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
I for one though would never be happy with permanently transparent bars.

a) [...]
b) If you focus on a cockpit bar in real life, it's solid. The only time it would not be is if you are unfocused on that particular depth of field (i.e. looking at a bomber 300 yards away, as you suggest). When doing instrument scans, fiddling with the gunsight, etc., you're going to have solid bars, even in your vision's periphery.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fiddling with you gunsights is a very bad example (or a good one for the RBJ's cause). Namely all the gunsights are images projected onto the windshield but they are sharp in the infinity. Thus when you look at your gunsight your eyes focus into the infinity and thus you can see sharp that bomber 600 m away.

[irony on] Not the case with the soviet gunsights handpainted in the rush on the windshield A.D. 1941, not modelled in the game.[irony off]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Hence the only suggestion I would subscribe to with regard to any transparency is that one mentioned earlier in this thread, where you could control the depth of field manually using your hatswitch or whatever.
SSS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A very bad idea. The eyes take perhaps 1/10 second to change their focus and alignment. Using your hat you will lose maybe 3 seconds or so.

RayBanJockey
01-12-2004, 07:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
Just give us programmable head positions.

End of story. You don't see not a single person complaining about visibility, with this scheme.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pressing a button to shift your view (head position) is a one time occurence. It solves the problem which is the topic of this thread as much as a grain of sand fills a bucket.

This is a bifocal vision thread. As such, it is simply referring to the total area of outside view that a pilot sees when looking beyond the cockpit bars.

What pilots spend their time while flying focusing on the cockpit bars?? They don't. They are looking beyond the cockpit bars at their surroundings.

Like I have said about ten times now, hold your hand out and look 300 yards beyond it. Now close one of your eyes. Open that eye. Close that eye. See the difference? You see alot more when you have 2 eyes open compared to 1 eye. This sim only does 1 eye.

A real pilot would see more of the outside than what this sim currently does, for the simple fact that he has 2 eyes, instead of 1. And this is because the left and right edges of the cockpit bars would be semi-transparent when looking beyond them.

It may be something anyone can turn on/off at any time, but it is certainly NOT a "realism option" that could be controlled by the host. Making it a "realism option" would be as silly as making a pilot with only 1 arm an option, or a pilot with only 1 leg an option. It's about realism, not making the game harder folks!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
As I said before, the thickness of the bar is significant
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still don't understand how you think "thickness" of the raw cockpit bar matters. Thickness does not refer to a bars angle/orientation/distance. A bar that is 10 inches thick will have 2 inches of transparency on each side. A bar that is 5 inches thick will also have 2 inches of (horizontal) transparency on each side. Just looking beyond the corner of a wall (you want thick?) will have 2 inches of transparency on its edge, compared to if you all the sudden only had 1 eye in the center of your head.


Actually all this stuff is more like 1.5 inches on each side (because your eyes are spread out about 1.5 inches from their center point)

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

SpinSpinSugar
01-12-2004, 07:57 AM
HansKnappstick, I wasn't referring to looking THROUGH your gunsight. I was more thinking of being able to fiddle with the dials on it for ranging, etc. Ok, that's a bad example. Just think doing anything to/looking at any instrument in your cockpit. Which you're going to spend a fair amount of time doing if you're flying for maximum realism. Having half-translucent cockpit bars during this time would be an immersion killer when ever you glance up. Translucency is only going to be important when you are tracking something at distance in the air or ground, or scanning the skies. In the latter case, moveable head position is MUCH more important.

I appreciate what RBJ's after here with regard to limited options for current technology (i.e. Forgotten Battles) but if we're looking forward to BoB and future titles nobbling the cockpit bars to be permanently half-assed translucent would be an inelegant solution and turn a lot of people off using the thing.

Cheers,

SSS

RayBanJockey
01-12-2004, 08:05 AM
You may think it's not elegant, but I would think it is the most beautiful cockpit ever.

Perhaps a button to toggle it to all solid for those who want to focus on the cockpit bars would be nice too.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

warriorbear
01-12-2004, 09:01 AM
My vote is to keep the cockpits as they are, being a modeler and seeing the detail these guys have done is amazing. Game is great when you go to far you tend to turn it into trash look at what happened to cfs 3.

Warriorbear

RayBanJockey
01-12-2004, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by warriorbear:
My vote is to keep the cockpits as they are, being a modeler and seeing the detail these guys have done is amazing. Game is great when you go to far you tend to turn it into trash look at what happened to cfs 3.

Warriorbear<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's too bad that you feel that way, Warriorbear. Most people don't even bother with the cockpit because it is too cumbersome with respect to the limitations due to the monitor FOV, lack of natural head motion, and cockpit bars that aren't transparent on the lateral edges (because pilots have 2 eyes instead of 1)

Here is to making the cockpit view more realistic so many more people can appreciate the hard work that these guys do.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

TX-Zen
01-12-2004, 10:41 AM
I support this as well and it's a darn good suggestion.

Anyone who thinks that our current flat 2 dimensional cockpits are perfectly real and accurate and should not be changed, are simply deluding themselves...they are choosing to believe that a game does a better job at simulating real life than real life itself does.

Investigating intelligent compromises that add to the playability of the game while staying faithful to the intent of the sim should be encouraged...if you think that a photograph of an LA7 cockpit slapped on a monitor screen is as real as it gets and the sim is pefect because of that...you have no understanding at all about what a 'simulation' is in the first place.

TX-Zen
Black 6
TX-Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM Only)
TX-OC3 Server 209.163.147.69:21000
http://www.txsquadron.com/library/20031218144359_Zensig2.jpg (http://www.txsquadron.com)

LuftKuhMist
01-12-2004, 01:15 PM
RBJ, 1 hour ago I typed a long message explaining why we are told to keep transparency down when we model for games and that 4 times the calcutaion is NOT an approcimation.

Then what happened is that the forum went down and my message was lost. So I won't type it again and let you think you are right, you expert 3D modeler/programmer dude.

What costs the most in 3D is Reflection, refraction, lights and shadows and transparency. Your theory about animated elements without flexible enveloppe (what we have in cockpit) being heavy is grade a bull**** with a ton maggots inside and flies above.

NegativeGee
01-12-2004, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RayBanJockey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
As I said before, the thickness of the bar is significant
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still don't understand how you think "thickness" of the raw cockpit bar matters. Thickness does not refer to a bars angle/orientation/distance. A bar that is 10 inches thick will have 2 inches of transparency on each side. A bar that is 5 inches thick will also have 2 inches of (horizontal) transparency on each side. Just looking beyond the corner of a _wall_ (you want thick?) will have 2 inches of transparency on its edge, compared to if you all the sudden only had 1 eye in the center of your head.


Actually all this stuff is more like 1.5 inches on each side (because your eyes are spread out about 1.5 inches from their center point)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I made a suggestion in my last post to a straight forward way to test how the thickness of an object is significant.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

tagert
01-12-2004, 06:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftKuhMist:
RBJ, 1 hour ago I typed a long message explaining why we are told to keep transparency down when we model for games and that 4 times the calcutaion is NOT an approcimation.

Then what happened is that the forum went down and my message was lost. So I won't type it again and let you think you are right, you expert 3D modeler/programmer dude.

What costs the most in 3D is Reflection, refraction, lights and shadows and transparency. Your theory about animated elements without flexible enveloppe (what we have in cockpit) being heavy is grade a bull**** with a ton maggots inside and flies above.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dang.. I would have liked to seen that. I dont claim to understand why transparency would be 4x more difacult... but I just find it hard to belive. I mean Red Baron II some... oh what has it been 5 years ago? Was doing semi-transparent cockpit bars... Actully they made the whole cockpit semi-trans (ie dash, floor, etc) but it worked well. At that time I thought the rest would follow suit... but nobody did. It does seem to be the natural progression?

On this topic.. I have seen some say that the head LEAN is not good either... in that the cockpit would have to be rendered from many different points of view other than the one we have now... IYHO what would be more of a FPS hit... semi-transparent cockpit bars... or a cockpit rendered from many many MANY more points.. That is when the pilot looks over his left sholder to check his back-left-six he would also LEAN and press his head up aginast the glass... instead of the current linda blair turn look with NO LEAN.

Im sure in the future we will have BOTH... but for the next step.. Which would be ezer on the hardware and software?

a) semi-tranparent
b) look and lean (ie multi prespective cockpit)

I think "a" is the answer in that the time to DRAW that multi prespective cockpit would require alot more time to draw then to semi-trans something that is allready drawn?

TAGERT

tagert
01-12-2004, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RayBanJockey:
Once again , this is NOT a moveable head issue. It will be many years before a sim figures out how to make a moveable head that does not require the tedious pressing of buttons.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagree 100%! It would not be that hard at all, using the current hat presses the view would simply move like it does now from one view to the next, but the orgin would move XXX in that same direction.

For example in IL2 NOW when you want to check your BACK-LEFT-SIX.. it is as if the pilot has his back glued to the seat and can not lean his body to the left (ie lean) so all we get is the Linda Blair effect of just turing the head.. Which results in most of your view being of the seat itself... But if the sim would move the orgin of the neck to the left also, it would be as if you leaned... PROBLEM with that (So Im Told) is the current 3D cockpits will not suport that, in that they are drawn as if the head is fixed (ie orgin of the neck does not move) if it does.. you would see things or not see things because they have not been drawn. So it would require more development time to draw the cockpit from multi prespectives.. but the FIXXED amount of movment would be very doable with the current HAT's, Mouse, and TrackIR systems. And if you dont use the FIXXED anount the you could program a LEAN key much like the current 45up view from any current view key.. Which still results in a FIXXED amoount of movment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RayBanJockey:
Any moveable head in BoB will do ZERO to solve this problem.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ZERO? I Disagree 100%! It would not address the two-eye semi trans parent issue.. ie they would still be solid.. but DONT LOOSE FOCUS OF YOUR GOAL HERE!!! THE GOAL IS TO SEE THE TARGET!! If you added the LEAN it would enable you to see the target... And it is a very NATURAL thing pilots do... In RL the COMBINATION of the LEAN and SEMI-TRANS work togther to meet this goal... But as with so many things in life.. You have to take baby steps.. The only question left to answer is which of these TWO steps would be eazer?

And the question of eazer is two fold... If LEAN is eazer on the hardware (ie not 4x transparcy) but 10x harder to draw up multi view cockpits... then I would say go with the semi-transparet and keep the current no lean cockpit... and visa versa

TAGERT

nearmiss
01-12-2004, 08:28 PM
I agree transparent cockpit bars would make virtual cockpits more sensible. I rarely fly "full real" cause it ain't.

Your head is just on a pivot...how dumb can it get. The funny part is how many people think that's full real...LOL

Personally, I don't think we're going to get anything in the way of improvement of the actual simulation programming possibly until BOB, if then. All we're going to get is what we've already gotten = IL2-Sturmovik 1.0 with more airplanes and some fixes.

A translucent cockpit frames shouldn't be difficult to implement. All the developer who have to do is create a translucent graphic for the panel and provide a switch for users to choose transluscent cockpit frames or no.

------------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RayBanJockey
01-12-2004, 10:22 PM
Lateral (example: left and right with respect to the viewers head) edges of cockpit bars (with the outside view in the distance beyond them) should have an inch (measured in the lateral plane only) of transparency(90%).



Without the parenthesis, the above statement reads:

"Lateral edges of cockpit bars should have an inch of transparency."
-What Oleg should tell the modelers.



Why? Because pilots have 2 eyes instead of 1, and cockpit view is handicapped enough.

I'ts pretty simple.


Any close lateral edge (it's only the existence of an edge that matters NegativeGee)to the viewer will have "about" an inch of transparency when looking at a far point beyond it.
This is in comparision to if you only had one eye in the center of your head (like current cockpit view)


Stop with your "It's gonna kill FPS!" rhetoric. Tell that to the programmers of this (albeit overdone) example:
http://www.pocketpclife.co.uk/images/features/102102xar019.jpg
Here you see the entire cockpit bars transparent. It should only be 1 inch on the lateral edges though.
This picture must be a game that get horrible FPS huh??? ...please. My suggestion would not even take off 1 fps.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

warriorbear
01-12-2004, 10:32 PM
That pic you show above, looks so Amiga Falconish and dumb keep the model the way it is. Your ultimate goal is to have a partial cockpit so that you can blend the 2 together VC and wonder woman(just admit it). Just learn how to fly within the environment of the cockpit given(which is no where near 2D just look at FS or cfs 2). I say again this would change the game a great deal and make it look cheap.

Warriorbear

RayBanJockey
01-12-2004, 10:41 PM
Remember warriorbear,

The goal is to make things more realistic.


2 questions to ponder:

Do pilots have 2 eyes, or 1?

Do pilots look at their cockpit bars more, or do they look beyond them more?


When you answer these 2 questions you will realize the errors of your thinking.

Here is to making the cockpit view more realistic so that more people will want to use it and appreciate the hard work these modelers do. Currently most people don't use the cockpit view because it is too obstructive and based on a pilot with only 1 eye.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

[This message was edited by RayBanJockey on Mon January 12 2004 at 09:50 PM.]

LuftKuhMist
01-12-2004, 11:08 PM
Tagert, numbers are correct, at least on renderware they were, 4 times calculation per triangle when transparency is involved.

Red Baron II had aircraft with wings made of 6 triangles with transparency. Still VERY FAR from current standards. PLUS if I remember well, RBII had a 2D cockpit.

Hey, I am not bull****ting on those calculations, maybe it is different with IL2 engine but I doubt it.

boohaa
01-13-2004, 10:05 AM
RBJ I still fully agree with you here.It sucks when some people dont want to better the simulation and just feel that a pretty cockpit is more important than the ability to not lose track of target.

How about this idea.have two sets of cameras and have sim constantly move between them when one loses sight of target behind a strut.Then the camera can shift over to other "eye" and target is in view again.Since it will be simulating two eyes the cameras should be close together and not cause too much disorientation when switching between the two.I think this is way better than having to hit a button.One less thing to concentrate on give more fun and more realism to boot.

heres an example to show effect....

close one eye and move two fingers across your view until you completley block out say a lightswitch.IMMEadiatley close that eye and open other eye and you can still track target.

What do you think RBJ??

aGunfighter
01-13-2004, 10:24 AM
Are you Streak ?

RayBanJockey
01-13-2004, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by boohaa:
RBJ I still fully agree with you here.It sucks when some people dont want to better the simulation....

How about this idea.have two sets of cameras and have sim constantly move between them when one loses sight of target behind a strut....

What do you think RBJ??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the computer would have to know if you were tracking that target or not, so your suggestion would only happen during a padlock sequence. Currently Padlock will hold it's track for a little while if the target is behind a bar so not much of a benefit.

I am simply trying to make the view of the pilot's world look more like what a pilot (with 2 eyes) would see when looking beyond the cockpit bars (which they do 99% of the time).

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

WB_Outlaw
01-13-2004, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
close one eye and move two fingers across your view until you completley block out say a lightswitch.IMMEadiatley close that eye and open other eye and you can still track target.

What do you think RBJ??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Until I saw the above post and tried it I didn't realize how big a difference RBJ was talking about. Try the above but keep both eyes open and hold your fingers about 14 inches away from your eyes (a very wide cockpit). Even using three fingers as an example, I can still see the light switch on the wall 7 feet away as I move my fingers past it. At arms length, three fingers blocks the actual switch briefly but never does the wall plate get completely blocked.

If the graphics engine can't handle the transparency, then there should be a reduced canopy framing view available. Even if it's not 100% realistic, it's better than the absolutely moronic and vile no cockpit view.

Even though he has a good point, I'd still like to slap RBJ for that sig. I can't read anything with his head bobbing around like that!!!<G>

-Outlaw.

Aaron_GT
01-13-2004, 10:48 AM
A movable head is the ideal, but I think
to make that totally usable we need to wait
until we all have stereoscopic vision goggles
and a version of track IR that tracks fully
in 3D.

In the meantime I think translucent struts
are a good compromise.

With regard to head movement - there would
need to be some mechanism - a form of
super headshake - to model G limits on head
movement. It would probably be quite confusing
and perhaps a little difficult to code without
causing nausea, to model involuntary head
movements during which your actual head
doesn't move.

nearmiss
01-13-2004, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by warriorbear:
That pic you show above, looks so Amiga Falconish and dumb keep the model the way it is. Your ultimate goal is to have a partial cockpit so that you can blend the 2 together VC and wonder woman(just admit it). Just learn how to fly within the environment of the cockpit given(which is no where near 2D just look at FS or cfs 2). I say again this would change the game a great deal and make it look cheap.

Warriorbear<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you saying those huge cockpit frames in the FW190 and BF109 are realistic? Those frames and the pilot's viewpoint in the late model FW190 are so encumbered it's practically unflyable. 1C:Maddox thinks that's realistic, that's bull!

My entire view of the so-called virtual world is a 19" computer monitor screen. Two thirds of the screen is blocked by a stupid cockpit that provides little of anything except an obstruction. " A six year old was looking over my shoulder and said it was stupid to have all that cockpit stuff when there wasn't enough to see anyway without it". All I could think of was "The emperor has no clothes".

I agree the graphic discussed and previously shown is simplistic, but you have to conclude with a good virtual cockpit like IL2-FB or Jane's WW2 Fighters and translucent cockpit frames the realistic appearance would still be there. In fact, levels of translucency could be provided to make viewing sensible without taking away the so-called feel for realism, as some refer to it.

There is nothing realistic about the current IL2-FB frames because they ignore the movement of a persons head, side to side, up and down, at different angles of view. The utility newview is a good example of what could be done. It could be done, the cockpit frame bars would change with head movement. It wouldn't be that difficult to interpolate what kind of viewing would be provided or required by someone looking back, up to the side,etc. How would you interpolate? Simple the developers would determine the maximum viewing position of the pilot's head for all viewing positions. If the pilot was looking back and down to the right, the program would move the pilot's head to the right as far as it would realistically move and look to the right and back and down. It would require a little math in the programming, but it could be done "NO DOUBT". So, when anyone thinks the big cockpit frames make for a realistic simulation they need to think again. Why has no one ever done this? I dont' know, but why has the AI in almost all combat flight sims been so darned lousy for so long? I just think creating a truly professional product is just not the goal of the developers. Their goal is to produce a selling product at least cost, and milk it for all it's worth.

So....you talk about unrealistic and arcadish...we have that now.

I think the translucent cockpit frames is just a simple fix for an issue that needs to be dealt with more professionally.

I doubt anything will ever be addressed, because 1C:Maddox is only give us some more planes, and some fixes until they have to do something for real to improve the IL2_FB. Frankly, I suspect there may be some fear on the part of 1C:maddox of doing a complete re-do of the IL2-FB. 1C:Maddox has learned from the MSFT CFS3 debaucle that they just may not be able to produce a truly improved and popular sequel to IL2-FB.

So...as long as IL2-FB sells, without solid improvements in the sim to pump in some new revenues, that's what will be provided.

As long as the users are only screaming for new aircraft, and a few tweaks that'll be the extent of it. The only thing that'll encourage some valid changes is "Competition".

"So play it and weep, because it isn't going to get much better in any respect"...LOL

----------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tagert
01-13-2004, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftKuhMist:
Tagert, numbers are correct, at least on renderware they were, 4 times calculation per triangle when transparency is involved.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok.. Ill take your word for it... But now the question still stands... What would be a bigger HIT on the HARDWARE... transparency or a multi-prespective-drawn cockpit.. ie what you would have to do to impliment the LEAN and LOOK. I am *assuming* that the multi-prespective-drawn cockpit would be no bigger of a hit then the current one-prespective-drawn cockpit.... BUT it might take 100 times longer to render such a cockpit, thus much harder, time consuming, and costly to make such a sim. If so, the 4 times of the transparency would be a better FIRST STEP at IMPROVING the VIEW.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftKuhMist:
Red Baron II had aircraft with wings made of 6 triangles with transparency. Still VERY FAR from current standards.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So? At that time the HARDWARE was no where near todays standards either!! And it did a very good job of transparency. The scale factor in 3D cards over the last few years would more then make up for the 4 times factor IMHO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftKuhMist:
PLUS if I remember well, RBII had a 2D cockpit.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmmmmm not sure what you mean by 2D here... it was not the 2D I think of where all you had was the SNAP views and no padlock... Red Baron II had a padlock view... not sure if that qualifys it as 3D... but probally somewhere inbetween?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftKuhMist:
Hey, I am not bull****ting on those calculations, maybe it is different with IL2 engine but I doubt it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not saying you are bulling... just trying to see where your comming from. This whole semi-transparent topic has been around the block many times in the past.. And each time I learn a little bit more about it all.. Personally I still see it as the natrual progression of the view systems... much like TrackIR is the natural progression of view input devices... To improve the view over what we have now we HAVE TO HAVE ONE OF TWO THINGS IF NOT BOTH

1) semi-transparent cockpit bars
2) Lean and Look ie mutli POV drawn 3D cockpits

The only question is which is less of a hit on the hardware vs. a hit on development.. Both have to be considered.. Im leaing towards the semi-transparent cockpit bars in that it would improve the view and though it might have a 4x hit.. that hit will be absorbed in the natural progression of video cards within the next 6 months to a year... But the added development time of rendering a multi POV 3D cockpit will NOT be absorbed by hardware improvments... They will still need to be drawn... and that will most likly add a 10x time to develope (ie draw) the 3D cockpits... if not more.

TAGERT

Recon_609IAP
01-13-2004, 09:41 PM
what's wrong with my idea: the toggle gunsight shifts the bars back and forth - several aircraft do that now - ie. p40 works great

Just need that for 190 and 109 for example (mostly 190) - they don't shift enough.

I do like this topic though - innovative - this and the padlock - fall into the 'view' category - would be cool to see BoB take this to the next level.

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

tagert
01-13-2004, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
what's wrong with my idea: the toggle gunsight shifts the bars back and forth - several aircraft do that now - ie. p40 works great

Just need that for 190 and 109 for example (mostly 190) - they don't shift enough.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good point! And that is something that should be doable by the next addon!! I dont know what thier justification is for some being able to lean/scoot back and forth farther than other... cockpit size? But for game play issues it should be the same for all ac... Actually no they should make them move far enough to move the cockpit bar from by the width of at least one and a half cockpit bars... That way if an ac is behind a bar.. you would be able to shift and then see it... The IL2 needs a bit more of this too... but the 190 needs it alot to make up for it allready hindered view do to the lack of glass refraction taken into account

TAGERT

RayBanJockey
01-13-2004, 11:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
what's wrong with my idea: the toggle gunsight shifts the bars back and forth - several aircraft do that now - ie. p40 works great

Just need that for 190 and 109 for example (mostly 190) - they don't shift enough.

I do like this topic though - innovative - this and the padlock - fall into the 'view' category - would be cool to see BoB take this to the next level.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is nothing wrong with being able to move your head by pressing a button, however it is not an alternate solution to the topic of this thread.

This is about what you see all the time when looking beyond the cockpit bars, not what happens for an instant when you manually press a button.

Here is to Oleg & Co. making the cockpit view more realistic.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

tagert
01-13-2004, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RayBanJockey:
There is nothing wrong with being able to move your head by pressing a button, however it is not an alternate solution to the topic of this thread.

This is about what you see all the time when looking beyond the cockpit bars, not what happens for an instant when you manually press a button.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is totally on topic... assuming the goal is to see what you can not see and should be able to see. On top of that.. it is too late for IL2FB to impliment any of the new stuff... but this shift is allready implimented.. it just needs to be tweaked

TAGERT

BfHeFwMe
01-13-2004, 11:35 PM
I think RayBob is on the right track here, the new sim ought to push the limits in realism, placing ones butt firmly in as good a 3D working pit as plausable while keeping the model in tact.

I'd like to see the POV shifting with the pan and dump this ancient camera head on a pin view. When I sit in my chair and swing my head to look back over both shoulders my POV swings on an arc, at least a good foot or more. Looking back I see around the side of my chair, not looking from a point centered on the middle of the seat back where the whole view is obstructed. Why can't the POV's at least swing in an arc in game, that would alleviate much of the problem. As it sits now your little pin eye is stuck in one spot, besides the gunsight shift there is never going to be another varied angle off a strut.

I'd also love a zoom on a slid'a, works the spiff in Lockon, when it did work. There were a thousand whine threads once the patch busted it, people loved it. Which raises the issue of trackir, contrary to what RayPup said it does work 3D, hold your mouse button down in external aircraft view, move your head away and closer and watch the zoom effect. Works great, no reason whatsever why that third demension couldn't be utilized inside the cockpit.

For those realism freaks who must have the bars, and if it's really to much of a drain on graphics, how about an alternative method. Say a setting where any vehicle or aircraft within .65 Km gets drawn over the struts. Who cares about seeing air and trees, it would do the same function but only to legit targets. Lets face it, if it's that close and in your area of view, you've seen it already any way. Something not right about being forced into slash attacks by bomber gunners, and being artificially blinded. Never read of any pilot yet writing about adjusting his flight path just to see something the other side of a strut. What's real about that?

starfighter1
01-13-2004, 11:37 PM
hi,
agree to nearmiss..

in short way:
by flying as an virtual pilot in the cockpit within the camera view system of IL2/FB we are all 'gnomish combatfighters'

Same to many other sims because the developers and designers think about better panel view and a one game's camera view system to all planes.

This way of programming is a dead horse for future progress.
Overframed struts and other problems in main design by using 3DMax another problem.
(as perspective and refraction design of armord windscreens))
(re: discussion about the 'Spitfire MK'(+bar) at netwings/third developers)

So once again the transparent option is not the way to more realistic virtual pilots view even in WWII warbirds combatsims.

The gunsightview is one of the most important view and should be overdone to all planes compare to a aceptable compromise to all type of planes.

BoB development is a chance to new fields. Hope Maddox will take it otherwise we get a well quality realistic graphic design within old camera view design.

I guess in real and as a virtual combat simer.. they don't fly on the wings and not through a transparent world of natural view.

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

tagert
01-13-2004, 11:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Same to many other sims because the developers and designers think about better panel view and a one game's camera view system to all planes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is a give and take...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
This way of programming is a dead horse for future progress.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagree... A true rendering of the cockpit is important... I would like to see more of the screen devoted to the cockpit glass instead of the cockpit's front panel with gauges... Most gagues are too hard to read due to location and or resolution... but I would like to be able to look down and see them... Right now we dont have to look down.. they take up the bottom 1/2... but again.. it is a give and take... Even thought HUD text display of speed, heading, etc were not the norm back then... if at all... we should have them as we do now.. Then we dont need to see so much of the guages and panel.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Overframed struts and other problems in main design by using 3DMax another problem.
(as perspective and refraction design of armord windscreens))
(re: discussion about the 'Spitfire MK'(+bar) at netwings/third developers)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nothing will be perfect... therefore you have to do some things to make up for that... semi-transparent cockpit bars is a REAL effect due to the fact we have two eyes... At least for vertical bars. Granted.. making them would not be perfect... and would not simulate the effect two eyes have to see around things... but it would be more realistic then what we have now... A solid block... In that in RL the combination of two-eyes and the ability to move ones head Left, Right, Up, Down, etc you would hardly notice the cockpit bars... therefore make the semi-transparent and that would make up for the the limts we now work within the 3D cockpit.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
So once again the transparent option is not the way to more realistic virtual pilots view even in WWII warbirds combatsims.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
The gunsightview is one of the most important view and should be overdone to all planes compare to a aceptable compromise to all type of planes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%! You have to find them, and then track them, before you can shoot them!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
BoB development is a chance to new fields. Hope Maddox will take it otherwise we get a well quality realistic graphic design within old camera view design.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
I guess in real and as a virtual combat simer.. they don't fly on the wings and not through a transparent world of natural view.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You couldnt be more wrong if you tried!!

TAGERT

tagert
01-14-2004, 12:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
I think RayBob is on the right track here, the new sim ought to push the limits in realism, placing ones butt firmly in as good a 3D working pit as plausable while keeping the model in tact.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! When the topic of semi-transpart cockpit bars was brought up here lat year by myslef and others we were trying to get it incorperated in IL2... But we learned that there is alot more to it then selecting semi-transparent from the pull down menu in the magic 3D program! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
I'd like to see the POV shifting with the pan and dump this ancient camera head on a pin view. When I sit in my chair and swing my head to look back over both shoulders my POV swings on an arc, at least a good foot or more. Looking back I see around the side of my chair, not looking from a point centered on the middle of the seat back where the whole view is obstructed. Why can't the POV's at least swing in an arc in game, that would alleviate much of the problem. As it sits now your little pin eye is stuck in one spot, besides the gunsight shift there is never going to be another varied angle off a strut.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I too asked that question a long time ago... And the answer I got from one of the 3D experts is it makes the rendering of the 3D cockpit much Much MUCH harder!!! Thus much Much MUCH more costly!!! Thus much Much MUCH more time consuming!!! Thus very unlikly to happen! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It is hard to explain... but the 3D cockpit... so Im told... is drawn with the idea that your only going to look at if from a fixed POV as far as LEFT (X) and RIGHT (Y) goes... but you can ZOOM in and out (Z) with no problem... If you were to move LEFT (X) or RIGHT (Y) you would be able to see BEHIND some of the 3D objects... and there is nothing there.. ie BAD. But that is about how it was explained to me.. Not 100% sure it is correct. But it kind of makes sense... Think of looking at an aircraft from the HEAD ON postion... you wouldnt be able to see the LEFT and RIGHT sides... Just the nose, leading edges of the wings, front of cockpit... etc.. if you walked to the LEFT or RIGHT of that view and then looked at it from a 45 degree angle.. there would be not LEFT and RIGHT sides.. because they were not drawn. Thus a multi POV 3D cockpit would be more dificult to do in many ways... Not sure if it would be that much harder on the hardware... once drawn... but it is sure to take a little hit... That is why the semi-transparent seems to be the way to go.. It is said to cause a 4x hit on the hardware... BUT you woulndt have to re-draw or draw more complex cockpits.. Thus saving all the cost and time of doing so.

TAGERT

LeadSpitter_
01-14-2004, 12:17 AM
I dont see how this is more realistic, you dont see transparent canopy bars when sitting in a p51 spitfire or flying a p40n, maybe rbj has a lazy eye in reality

But I would like to see it brought to the game for people just learning BOB as an easy difficult setting and the removal of no cockpit view with no padlock view since Padlockers say they use it becuase of canopy bars blinding thier vision.

a maybe this would be a better learning curve to get the no cockpit externals on pl people to advance to harder settings but I doubt it.

All we need for a more realistic cockpit view is a lean left and right rather then having multiple cockpit models which will be very time consuming to create

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

RayBanJockey
01-14-2004, 01:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I dont see how this is more realistic, you dont see transparent canopy bars when sitting in a p51 spitfire or flying a p40n, maybe rbj has a lazy eye in reality<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you even read the thread? Or just assume "RBJ wants invisible cockpit bars..I'll chime in ...it's for noobs"


The thread is about lateral edges of cockpit bars being semi-transparent. Something that all pilots with 2 eyes see when looking beyond them.


The modelers can make the lateral right and left inch of cockpit bars semi-transparent. This inch is measured purely in the lateral dimension.

No leadspitter, I don't have a lazy eye. I have 2 eyes. When I hold my hand out and look 300 yards beyond it (as pilots spend 99% of their time looking beyond the cockpit bars) my hand only blocks half the view with 2 eyes open compared to only 1 eye open.

If you still don't like the idea Leadspitter, we can also have a button (to negate the transparency) for people like you who think this is a "Dungeons and Dragons" sim, where the pilot is a cyclops instead of a human.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

starfighter1
01-14-2004, 04:49 AM
hi tagert,
I have X-Plane(include this feature for better control and learn of landing etc.) on my disk and experience in real prop planes.

The transparent feature is far away from real feelings even to combatfights.

Anyway: the forward view by 'sitting like a duck in the virtual cockpit' in most of the planes is overdue and far away from real pilots view.
OK: maybe next advanced sims will have options to beamer systems like semi-professionel systems
including home based cockpits as we know from Falcon-simers. But that is another story.

In this thread we are talking about options to improve a pc-game sim's view. That the small but important difference to other projects.

Anyway: at all it depends on the wishes of many 'Jonny Joysticks' and the marketing of developer and publisher to this genre.

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

MiloMorai
01-14-2004, 05:12 AM
Ah, just wire-frame the canopy/windshield bars.

Don't do anything to the a/c's other structures(fuselage, wings, tail, stab).

starfighter1
01-14-2004, 05:31 AM
hi,
bump
agree..
it's a joke
all this nice fellowers here arround prefere the 'ducky and gnomish virtual pilots view' in
this pc-sim...and believe or hope that a gimmick like transparent view turnes over to more realistic sim feature......

It's like 'Jonny Joystick' sitting first time in dad's new car before the stearing wheel...

the difference: daddy knows the real view either in car or in his plane's cockpit
the


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Ah, just wire-frame the canopy/windshield bars.

Don't do anything to the a/c's other structures(fuselage, wings, tail, stab).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

SpinSpinSugar
01-14-2004, 09:15 AM
RBJ: "I am simply trying to make the view of the pilot's world look more like what a pilot (with 2 eyes) would see when looking beyond the cockpit bars (which they do 99% of the time)."

This is where you show your true arcade cockpit off DF server colours I'm afraid RBJ, and where my objection to this concept as a permafix lies. If you are flying in any realistic environment (indeed, in the real world, which you apparently desperate to emulate), you are NOT going to be spending 99% of your time focused on distance. This MAY be true when involved in a dogfight, but not in any other phase of flight. You are correct to assume people won't spend a lot of their time staring fixedly at their cockpit bars, but WILL be spending a fair amount of time with their heads "in the cockpit" when dealing with navigation, engine management, etc. Certainly with the speedbar off (although I doubt you're a fan of that).

Truly 3D freedom of viewpoint would require at least two inputs (e.g. hatswitch + TrackIR, mouse + hatswitch) but would be more realistic than perspex canopy struts (unless this was a variable effect dependant on where you were looking, but as discussed, that's hard to arrange).

Cheers,

SSS

tagert
01-14-2004, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Ah, just wire-frame the canopy/windshield bars.

Don't do anything to the a/c's other structures(fuselage, wings, tail, stab).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! Allthough I would like to see more detail then a wire frame for the canopy struts, but, a wire frame would simulate the effet two-eye provide better than the solid structures we have now.

TAGERT

tagert
01-14-2004, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
bump
agree..
it's a joke
all this nice fellowers here arround prefere the 'ducky and gnomish virtual pilots view' in
this pc-sim...and believe or hope that a gimmick like transparent view turnes over to more realistic sim feature......

It's like 'Jonny Joystick' sitting first time in dad's new car before the stearing wheel...

the difference: daddy knows the real view either in car or in his plane's cockpit
the
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Daddy needs to get out more... I have some real stick time myself.. But that is NOT necessary for this subject... Anyone with two eyes and has ever driven a car has experanced what it is we are talking about... They may not have noticed it because millions of years of evolution has made it automatic... Sense you seem to be a little confused on the topic at hand, allow me to clear a few things up... IF you stair at the cockpit strut itself (ie focus on it) while sitting in the cockpit of an aircraft it will appear solid and you wont be able to see through it... We all knew, know and agree on that... but that is not what we are talking about... What we are talking about is stairing at something beyond the cockpit strut (ie an aircraft 500ft from yours) and focusing on that... When you do so the cockpit strut between you and the aircraft at 500ft will praticly disapear.. ie look semi trans parent.

With that said.. The PC monitor does NOT know if we are looking at the strut, or, 500ft past it, therefore eveything is in focus all the time... Wich is unrealistic... but todate that is the limitations of simulating things on a 21" PC montior and 2GHz PC for less than $3000.00. The topic at hand knows that what is more important to us is the aircraft at 500ft, not the guages at 1ft... Therefore the goal is to do SOMETHING to make the PC simulation more like real life... Semi-Transparent cockpit bars is one way of doing it

TAGERT

tagert
01-14-2004, 12:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
This is where you show your true arcade cockpit off DF server colours I'm afraid RBJ, and where my objection to this concept as a permafix lies. If you are flying in any realistic environment (indeed, in the real world, which you apparently desperate to emulate), you are NOT going to be spending 99% of your time focused on distance. This MAY be true when involved in a dogfight, but not in any other phase of flight. You are correct to assume people won't spend a lot of their time staring fixedly at their cockpit bars, but WILL be spending a fair amount of time with their heads "in the cockpit" when dealing with navigation, engine management, etc. Certainly with the speedbar off (although I doubt you're a fan of that).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I dont assume to know exactally what RBJ is requesting, but I dont think he is requesting what you have implied here... ie to make the WHOLE COCKPIT transparent! That is NOT what RBJ is requesting... I THINK? And it is NOT what Im requesting!! What I/we would like to see is just the CANOPY STRUTS be made semi-trans parent... not the whole cockpit.. that is not the panel that the gauges are on, nor the left and right side or seat or wings... Just the canopy struts that hold the glass in place. In that in real life they would appear semi-transparent when you FOCUS on something (aircraft) beyond the canopy struts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Truly 3D freedom of viewpoint would require at least two inputs (e.g. hatswitch + TrackIR, mouse + hatswitch) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not really, in that all you have to do is impliment a fix amout of lean when you look left or right.. So the current one input would be enough.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
but would be more realistic than perspex canopy struts (unless this was a variable effect dependant on where you were looking, but as discussed, that's hard to arrange).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Disagree 100%

TAGERT

nearmiss
01-14-2004, 12:34 PM
Amazing commentary...

The argument for translucent cockpit frames is SIMPLE. It would be a tool to provide better viewing and situational awareness.

Transluscent cockpit frames would be an easy implementation compared to other methods.

Wonderwoman view is disorienting at best, and the so-called full real cockpits are so obstructed it's stupid.

Personally, like I said before...we've got all we're gonna get in the IL2-FB. We'll get some more aircraft and a few tweaks, but that'll be the extent of it until competition forces substantial improvements or else.

So, all the profound arguments, speculation, and wish lists on this board is a waste of time.

I'm just too "full-real". I can't be disappointed, because I'm not expecting anything nor getting my hopes up about anything..LOL

----------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[This message was edited by nearmiss on Wed January 14 2004 at 11:54 AM.]

tagert
01-14-2004, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
So, all the profound arguments, speculation, and wish lists on this board is a waste of time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! I think even RBJ realises it is too late for IL2 to impliment anything new with regards to the view system... But hopefully some of this will be takin into consideration for BoB

TAGERT

nearmiss
01-14-2004, 03:02 PM
Tagert,
You've got it right. I think it's fine to express your interests in improvements. Positive commmentary sure can't hurt.

I've noticed few entries on this board and the other IL-2 FB boards by anyone directly associated with 1C:Maddox for the last year.

I do appreciate the patches, whether there is a lot of involvement on the boards by 1C:Maddox or not.

It is also nice to be a part of a great community of users.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

------------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SpinSpinSugar
01-15-2004, 04:31 AM
Tagert,

Sorry, I wasn't implying that RBJ wanted a transparent cockpit (!). That paragraph merely stated that his assertion a pilot in any realistic situation spends 99% of his time focused on distance is inaccurate as significant amount of time is spent instrument watching. Such a circumstance would only apply to an arcade flyer with HUD instruments.

The point being transparent bars 100% of the time is no more or less accurate than solid bars 100% of the time.

Agree with your comment about lean on a one-input view control though, IF an intelligent approach to center-of-viewpoint movement was applied. Would solve EVERYONE'S PROBLEM. I think. Would require minimum movement of the head to be able to scan all the sky obscured by cockpit bars, for instance.

I *have* been following the thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers, SSS

Navy_Fighter
01-15-2004, 06:58 AM
I am relatively new to this sim/forum, however this is an important issue that all real pilots face when confronting a computer simulation. I like the idea in general, and would like to address some specific objections:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Sorry, I wasn't implying that RBJ wanted a transparent cockpit (!). That paragraph merely stated that his assertion a pilot in any realistic situation spends 99% of his time focused on distance is inaccurate as significant amount of time is spent instrument watching. Such a circumstance would only apply to an arcade flyer with HUD instruments.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Real pilots look at their instruments. They look beyond their cockpit bars. Repeated again so that you do not miss it (due to to your anti-arcade bias http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ) Real pilots look at their instruments. They look beyond their cockpit bars.

If they aren't looking at their instruments then 99% of the time they are looking beyond their cockpit bars. Since they have 2 eyes instead of 1, and they are looking into the distance, the cockpit bars will appear to have transparent lateral edges.

When a pilot uses the "look forward down" button to look at their instuments (as most do), or even if they use the much vaunted "TrackIR" to do so, they don't even see ther cockpit bars when looking at their instuments, because the screen isn't big enough.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The point being transparent bars 100% of the time is no more or less accurate than solid bars 100% of the time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you mean "tranparent" in the sense of which has been proposed in this thread, then you are wrong. As has been clearly stated, real pilots look at their instruments, they look beyond their cockpit bars. When they aren't looking at their instuments, 99% of the time they are looking beyond their cockpit bars. Therefore your assertion that solid cockpit bars 100% of the time is as good as anything is 99% incorrect.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Agree with your comment about lean on a one-input view control though, IF an intelligent approach to center-of-viewpoint movement was applied. Would solve EVERYONE'S PROBLEM. I think. Would require minimum movement of the head to be able to scan all the sky obscured by cockpit bars, for instance.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You "think" the ability to move your head would "solve everbody's problem", but frankly you are wrong. This thread is for those who wish to address what a pilot with 2 eyes instead of 1 eye would see, when looking beyond the cockpit bars, regardless of their current head position. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

It is probably too late for this feature to be implemented in this current simulatiom however is would be a welcome addition to "Battle of Britian".

-------------------------------------------------
Practice Practice Practice!
(makes almost perfect)

zodicus1
01-15-2004, 08:33 AM
ok i really didnt want to read all the post so if some one said this already im sorryhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
ok i for one think the pad lock interaly is a realistic option, so how about when u pad lock an object the computer automaticly moves the piolit's POV to optimize his/her view of the target. Then there would be no combersome buttons to push or eeven worrie about. Tracking a target would be totaly intuitive just like a real poilt. Hitting the button is u reconizing the target, and then the computer moving the POV is what u would naturlly do any way. In a DF u just dont losse site of a target cause u didnt want to move youre head, mabey the rokies did but they died ??? wonder why? I think it would be a good idea so thanx for the brain storm booster RBJ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MiloMorai
01-15-2004, 08:45 AM
zodicus1, not a bad idea. But, why add more code complication? Leave the head in one place but don't have the a/c disappear(or not seeable) if the a/c could have been seen by moving your head.

Mackane_
01-15-2004, 09:06 AM
Just make the bars more narrow. It wouldn't be true to scale, but I wouldn't mind the trade-off. Semi-transparent bars on a monitor would appear too unrealistic to me.

http://home.si.rr.com/skywolf/MACKANE.jpg

SpinSpinSugar
01-15-2004, 09:43 AM
Hey, Navy_Fighter, a lot of assertions there. I am a real pilot, was up just the other day, in fact. Cheers for the putdowns though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There is a lot of time in FB when you are looking at your instruments when both the outside world and canopy bars are visible. The only time the two do not coexist on the screen is when you're looking right down into the cockpit at, say, the compass in the Hurricane.

Ergo my point as I see it stands, however you don't see it that way, so carry on thinking what you're thinking and I'll do likewise.

Cheers, SSS

nearmiss
01-15-2004, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mackane_:
Just make the bars more narrow. It wouldn't be true to scale, but I wouldn't mind the trade-off. Semi-transparent bars on a monitor would appear too unrealistic to me.

http://home.si.rr.com/skywolf/MACKANE.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first issue in aerial combat, especially WW2 vintage, is good visuals. In fact, I've even read numerous accounts where pilots were overjoyed to have a pilot in their flight that had better long range visual abilities. When radar was practically negligible visual contact was the key to staying alive.

The issue with narrow frame bars is Oleg. He is into the full real size of the frame bars. There was a thread a while back about the FW190 cockpit. I think that thread ran over 1,000 responses. Oleg made a very stubborn stand for the cockpit being realistic...and you couldn't see out of the darn thing...LOL

Translucent frames might keep Oleg happy and still give us what we need. Remember transluscent doesn't mean clear. The viewing through the bars doesn't have to be full viewable. The user has just got to be able to discern the other aircraft and have the frames still visible enough to maintain situational awareness.

This would be a simple fix and it could be switchable.

-------------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tagert
01-15-2004, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by nearmiss:
Remember transluscent doesn't mean clear. The viewing through the bars doesn't have to be full viewable. The user has just got to be able to discern the other aircraft and have the frames still visible enough to maintain situational awareness.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly! Dark enough that the layout and color is still there... i.e. the bolts, green or gray, etc... i.e. semi-transparent!! I see it working like this... it would be dark enough that you would NOT be able to see a DOT at long distance... BUT light enough that you COULD make out an aircraft and it orientation while in a close quarter dog fight... This would help aircraft like the 109 and 190 tremendsly!! In that it would maintain the BAD visuals it truly had during the part of trying to SPOT the enemy... but enable them to maintain track of the target ONCE the pilot had spotted it and moved in close... Because in REAL LIFE the SPOTTING of the enemy was the trick.... maintain was the job.. and they would simply move their heads left or right up or down to maintain the visual

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by nearmiss:
This would be a simple fix and it could be switchable.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is left to be seen... Some say it is, some say it aint... I don't know... but I do know that doing so would make it more realistic

TAGERT

tagert
01-15-2004, 11:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by zodicus1:
ok i really didn't want to read all the post so if some one said this already im sorry
ok i for one think the pad lock interaly is a realistic option, so how about when u pad lock an object the computer automaticly moves the piolit's POV to optimize his/her view of the target. Then there would be no combersome buttons to push or eeven worrie about. Tracking a target would be totaly intuitive just like a real poilt. Hitting the button is u reconizing the target, and then the computer moving the POV is what u would naturlly do any way.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmmmm I don't like it... More code and PL all ready moves my head into positions I don't like.. now you want it to bob and duck for me too? But mostly I don't like this solution is because I don't think padlock is real... Don't get me wrong, the fluid motion of padlock is realistic looking.. it mimics the why one would move his head/view in real life... but you can do that with the mouse or TrackIR... It is all the other stuff about padlock that makes it unrealistic that I don't like... for example the ability to maintain a track when the camo ac is low over the trees.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by zodicus1:
In a DF u just don't losse site of a target cause u didnt want to move youre head, mabey the rokies did but they died ??? wonder why? I think it would be a good idea so thanx for the brain storm booster RBJ
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is exactly why I don't like padlock... you never loose sight! You don't have to position your aircraft to maintain sight... just hold the look forward key down when an AC goes into the clouds, clutter, behind you, etc and it wont time out and maintain the track... This UNREALISTIC advantage makes for unrealistic tactics and ENABLES the BnZ types to lock on, hold the forward look key, Climb like a monkey with is A on fire with no regards to maintain a visual on the target... Once in a good position turn around for the next Boom and Zoom then release the forward looking key and WAH LAH you have found the target without even looking for it because padlock has maintained the lock for you.

Padlock was initially develop back when most joysticks didnt have a multi hat button.. (Falcon 3.0 days) and it was great! But now it is not necessary... and in the VERY NEAR future anyone who is anyone will have something like TrackIR which will really make padlock obsolete

TAGERT

MiloMorai
01-15-2004, 11:19 AM
nearmiss, yes Oleg has to reach some kind of comprimise between his scale fidelity fetish and real life. As it now stands with all the cockpits, none are true to life from a pilot's view point.

zoomar2
01-15-2004, 11:48 AM
As an only offline player I may not understand the mania for "realism" among a lot of FB players, but it seems to me this problem is most apparent when you are padlocking targets and you unrealistically loose awareness of them because the are obscured by frames for a few seconds. The simplest solution would be for padlocking to continue indefinitely even when the target plane is obscured by the cockipt frames (or possibly even the rest of your plane, as well). Personally, transparent frames would hurt the outstanding visual realism of the game. I also would hate to have to push even more buttons to shift my virtual head around. This would be a very non-intuitive way of handling a natural act (FB is not a first person shooter!!!) Perhaps a device like trackR could be developed to sense head movement and translate it into different pov's within the cockpit, but very few FB players are ever going to own such specialized equipment. I would suggest that a realism setting option called "full padlock" be implemented which just ignores cockpit frames and acts as if all cockpit canopies were full bubbles when determining if visual contact is lost. That way the anal realism-heads could still keep losing visual contact with their targets in their heavy-framed Fw-190's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif while the rest of us could just play on. This would seem a fairly good compromise.

starfighter1
01-15-2004, 12:07 PM
hi,
here a link of top jet Mig-29 video:
just to show and have fun..enjoy..
and recognize pilots head and eyes moving at high G (remember G-power at warbirs at combat fight)and the height of real view.
I guess there are some WWII warbird racer videos too.

http://www.strizhi.ru/2003/videos/film1/strizhi.mpg

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

tagert
01-15-2004, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by MiloMorai
nearmiss, yes Oleg has to reach some kind of comprimise between his scale fidelity fetish and real life. As it now stands with all the cockpits, none are true to life from a pilot's view point.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well said, Agree 100%

TAGERT

nearmiss
01-15-2004, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by nearmiss:
Remember transluscent doesn't mean clear. The viewing through the bars doesn't have to be full viewable. The user has just got to be able to discern the other aircraft and have the frames still visible enough to maintain situational awareness.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly! Dark enough that the layout and color is still there... i.e. the bolts, green or gray, etc... i.e. semi-transparent!! I see it working like this... it would be dark enough that you would NOT be able to see a DOT at long distance... BUT light enough that you COULD make out an aircraft and it orientation while in a close quarter dog fight... This would help aircraft like the 109 and 190 tremendsly!! In that it would maintain the BAD visuals it truly had during the part of trying to SPOT the enemy... but enable them to maintain track of the target ONCE the pilot had spotted it and moved in close... Because in REAL LIFE the SPOTTING of the enemy was the trick.... maintain was the job.. and they would simply move their heads left or right up or down to maintain the visual

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by nearmiss:
This would be a simple fix and it could be switchable.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is left to be seen... Some say it is, some say it aint... I don't know... but I do know that doing so would make it more realistic

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

------------------------ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I say easy switchable fix, because the current panel appears to just be a bitmap graphic. All the developer has to do is create a second panel with transluscent frame bars in lieu of the opague frame bars. The user could switch between the two graphics files.

This shouldn't be too difficult to implement, because the transluscent panels would just be altered opague panels.

-------------------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Personally, padlocking is an archaic way to manage combat situational awareness. I agree it was needed with old sims, before we had some of the current tools and software.

I am amazed that Oleg and 1C:Maddox have been so reluctant to change the so-called realistic Virtual panels.

Of course, I might add I never understood how the people in country the size of the USSR could embrace a political ideology as stupid as communism, yet they did. So, what do I know? That's what's great about folks...they're all different. LOL

----------------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Maybe someone with some good graphic software tools and ability to make a good video presentation could change Oleg's thinking. A video presentation of just how transluscent frame bars would aid in operating IL2-FB aircraft in aerial combat situations might just be effective. I wouldn't know how to start. I do know transluscent cockpits frame bars can be created fairly easily in CFS3, because the panel graphic files are accessible and editable. I don't know why transluscent cockpits haven't been done in CFS3, or maybe they have. I haven't messed with CFS3 in so long I wouldn't know what the third party devs have done by now.

--------------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tagert
01-15-2004, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zoomar2:
As an only offline player I may not understand the mania for "realism" among a lot of FB players, but it seems to me this problem is most apparent when you are padlocking targets and you unrealistically loose awareness of them because the are obscured by frames for a few seconds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>NOPE! It is most apparent from any view system, padlock, keyboard, or mouse.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zoomar2:
The simplest solution would be for padlocking to continue indefinitely even when the target plane is obscured by the cockipt frames (or possibly even the rest of your plane, as well).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>NO! Even the pro-padlock guys would admit that is wrong! It would make padlock more of a cheat!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zoomar2:
Personally, transparent frames would hurt the outstanding visual realism of the game.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not if done correctly!! We are not talking see-threw here! The cockpit bars would still be there, still detailed and still with color... Just semi-tranparent... Enough to be able to make out an aircarft that is close to you.. the outline and orentation so you would know if he reversed his direction while he was behind that 10ft think Fw190 canopy bar! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zoomar2:
I also would hate to have to push even more buttons to shift my virtual head around. This would be a very non-intuitive way of handling a natural act (FB is not a first person shooter!!!)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The head LEAN is a differnt topic.. but you wouldnt need another button to tell it to LEAN.. Basically 999 out of a 1000 times when you LOOK to the LEFT to check your FRONT-LEFT, LEFT, or BACK-LEFT-SIX you are going to LEAN to the LEFT until your head hits the canopy!!!!! That is to say you are NOT going to LEAN to the right to look to the left! THEREFORE simply make the current HAT movment, or Mouse movemnt, or Padlock movment, or TrackIR movment to the LEFT LEAN AS FAR LEFT AS IT CAN.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zoomar2:
Perhaps a device like trackR could be developed to sense head movement and translate it into different pov's within the cockpit, but very few FB players are ever going to own such specialized equipment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I will happen some day, but not necarry to solve this problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zoomar2:
I would suggest that a realism setting option called "full padlock" be implemented which just ignores cockpit frames and acts as if all cockpit canopies were full bubbles when determining if visual contact is lost. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100% that would be "full padock cheat" and give an UNFAIR advantage to those who use padlock... keep in mind NOT EVEYONE DOES! Padlock does not enable you to check six easylly... thus alot of the hard core full real guys dont use it! The full real guys want to be in ctrl of what they are looking at... Not some PC panning your view for you as if it knows best of where to look.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zoomar2:
That way the anal realism-heads could still keep losing visual contact with their targets in their heavy-framed Fw-190's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif while the rest of us could just play on. This would seem a fairly good compromise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagree 100%

TAGERT

[This message was edited by tagert on Thu January 15 2004 at 12:15 PM.]

tagert
01-15-2004, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
I say easy switchable fix, because the current panel appears to just be a bitmap graphic. All the developer has to do is create a second panel with transluscent frame bars in lieu of the opague frame bars. The user could switch between the two graphics files.

This shouldn't be too difficult to implement, because the transluscent panels would just be altered opague panels.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. but people who claim to be "in the know" say it aint so.. I dont know, maybe it is, maybe it aint.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zoomar2:
Personally, padlocking is an archaic way to manage combat situational awareness. I agree it was needed with old sims, before we had some of the current tools and software.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zoomar2:
I am amazed that Oleg and 1C:Maddox have been so reluctant to change the so-called realistic Virtual panels.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well... 3D is good.. but it does not take into account things like glass refraction... and to re-draw alot of those cockpis could be big $... So I can understand why there are resistant.. not saying it is right, just that I can understand the motivation not to admit it is wrong! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zoomar2:
Of course, I might add I never understood how the people in country the size of the USSR could embrace a political ideology as stupid as communism, yet they did. So, what do I know? That's what's great about folks...they're all different. LOL
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well... the USSR is no different then any other contray.. We are all guilty of this to some extent! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I mean take religon for example... On 2nd thought.. DONT! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zoomar2:
Maybe someone with some good graphic software tools and ability to make a good video presentation could change Oleg's thinking. A video presentation of just how transluscent frame bars would aid in operating IL2-FB aircraft in aerial combat situations might just be effective. I wouldn't know how to start. I do know transluscent cockpits frame bars can be created fairly easily in CFS3, because the panel graphic files are accessible and editable. I don't know why transluscent cockpits haven't been done in CFS3, or maybe they have. I haven't messed with CFS3 in so long I wouldn't know what the third party devs have done by now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Gib! Gib! Gib! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

tagert
01-15-2004, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Navy_Fighter:
I am relatively new to this sim/forum, however this is an important issue that all real pilots face when confronting a computer simulation. I like the idea in general, and would like to address some specific objections:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Sorry, I wasn't implying that RBJ wanted a transparent cockpit (!). That paragraph merely stated that his assertion a pilot in any realistic situation spends 99% of his time focused on distance is inaccurate as significant amount of time is spent instrument watching. Such a circumstance would only apply to an arcade flyer with HUD instruments.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Real pilots look at their instruments. They look _beyond_ their cockpit bars. Repeated again so that you do not miss it (due to to your anti-arcade bias http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ) Real pilots look at their instruments. They look _beyond_ their cockpit bars.

If they aren't looking at their instruments then 99% of the time they are looking beyond their cockpit bars. Since they have 2 eyes instead of 1, and they are looking into the distance, the cockpit bars will appear to have transparent lateral edges.

When a pilot uses the "look forward down" button to look at their instuments (as most do), or even if they use the much vaunted "TrackIR" to do so, _they don't even see ther cockpit bars when looking at their instuments, because the screen isn't big enough._
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The point being transparent bars 100% of the time is no more or less accurate than solid bars 100% of the time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you mean "tranparent" in the sense of which has been proposed in this thread, then you are _wrong_. As has been clearly stated, real pilots look at their instruments, they look _beyond_ their cockpit bars. When they aren't looking at their instuments, 99% of the time they are looking beyond their cockpit bars. Therefore your assertion that solid cockpit bars 100% of the time is as good as anything is _99% incorrect_.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Agree with your comment about lean on a one-input view control though, IF an intelligent approach to center-of-viewpoint movement was applied. Would solve EVERYONE'S PROBLEM. I think. Would require minimum movement of the head to be able to scan all the sky obscured by cockpit bars, for instance.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You "think" the ability to move your head would "solve everbody's problem", but frankly you are wrong. This thread is for those who wish to address what a pilot with 2 eyes instead of 1 eye would see, when looking beyond the cockpit bars, _regardless of their current head position_. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

It is probably too late for this feature to be implemented in this current simulatiom however is would be a welcome addition to "Battle of Britian".

-------------------------------------------------
Practice Practice Practice!
(makes almost perfect)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed 100%

TAGERT

nearmiss
01-15-2004, 01:13 PM
I've often thought what would make aerial combat more viable, as aerial combat. I'm not talking realism here.

What would be the absolute minimum needed to have the best most effective combat situations (again ignoring realism)

We'd need a full view like the Hud, but we'd still need some differentiation in the view that was consistent. We'd need something like a surrounding cockpit.

We'd need a few digital gauges big enough to view just below the targeting reticle to discern without fixating our view on them. The reason I say digital is because the thinking process is easy. You'd need a gyroscopic type attitude indicatior with bubble, your airspeed is XXX, your altitude is XXX, your rate of Ascent/descent is XXX,etc. Your brain wouldn't even have to decypher a circular gauge hand and surrounding values.

-------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So...what's really important?

Seeing and identifying the enemy, being able to acquire visual on the enemy soon and easily.

Being able to visualize just where your aircraft was relative to the world, friendly and enemy aircraft.

-------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tagert
01-15-2004, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
I've often thought what would make aerial combat more viable, as aerial combat. I'm not talking realism here.

What would be the absolute minimum needed to have the best most effective combat situations (again ignoring realism)

We'd need a full view like the Hud, but we'd still need some differentiation in the view that was consistent. We'd need something like a surrounding cockpit.

We'd need a few digital gauges big enough to view just below the targeting reticle to discern without fixating our view on them. The reason I say digital is because the thinking process is easy. You'd need a gyroscopic type attitude indicatior with bubble, your airspeed is XXX, your altitude is XXX, your rate of Ascent/descent is XXX,etc. Your brain wouldn't even have to decypher a circular gauge hand and surrounding values.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>AGREED 100%!!!! On top of that have a colored graph like BAR at the edge of the screen that indicates your g's!!! Basically a moden day type of HUD info overlay! Granted it aint realistic for WWII... BUT we are trying to make up for the que's we lack that we would have if it was real.. You would feel the g's... but we dont feel them here.. so we NEED some kind of feedback.. a number/digital guage is fine for speed, airspeed and such... but I think the g indicator should be a bar graph with a number at the bottom... Alot of modern AC have that on the HUD


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
So...what's really important?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In order? Chicks than Sims http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
Seeing and identifying the enemy, being able to acquire visual on the enemy soon and easily.
Being able to visualize just where your aircraft was relative to the world, friendly and enemy aircraft.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed.

TAGERT

starfighter1
01-15-2004, 02:46 PM
hi,
I would prefere 3D view plus a second monitor(includes the panel) near down of the main big one. A multi graphic card option + 3 D glasses + Track IR

OK: a reprogramming of FB or option in BoB to a homebuild cockpit(+ working instruments) with beamers and a high performed workstation.

But this is a pc-flightsim at normal gamers budget price.
A Addon is knocking at the door ..business as usual...

let's hope for the future to get more progress..

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

starfighter1
01-15-2004, 02:54 PM
hi,
I would prefere 3D view plus a second monitor(includes the panel) near down of the main big one. A multi graphic card option + 3 D glasses + Track IR

OK: a reprogramming of FB or option in BoB to a homebuild cockpit(+ working instruments) with beam

zoomar2
01-15-2004, 06:27 PM
Hey Tagert, I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but please don't quote me for things I didn't say as on your 11:55 post.

Keep the padlock and make it more useful!

SpinSpinSugar
01-16-2004, 04:01 AM
Well, I was going to leave it alone but as Tagert came along and agreed with everything Navy_Fighter said I guess I'll have to respond to add a counterpoint to all the back slapping. Sorry, I have a headache and I'm a bit cranky http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Real pilots look at their instruments. They look _beyond_ their cockpit bars. Repeated again so that you do not miss it (due to your anti-arcade bias ) Real pilots look at their instruments. They look _beyond_ their cockpit bars.

And.

When a pilot uses the "look forward down" button to look at their instruments (as most do), or even if they use the much vaunted "TrackIR" to do so, _they don't even see their cockpit bars when looking at their instruments, because the screen isn't big enough._

Ignoring the "I assume you're not a real pilot, see" patronisation, this is just plain incorrect. Do you guys ever fly the Hurricane? I'm getting the impression this is a 109/190 pilot bugbear. Which is fair enough, I guess, they have a very restricted view. The assertion that you can't see the canopy when looking at your instruments is laughable. I am a TrackIR user and my viewpoint is in CONSTANT motion between the two, as indeed chaps, it is in real life. My big 'ole monitor has no problem showing me both on screen. Admittedly, I don't tend to dogfight in real life, but other phases of flight are similar, especially with the speedbar off. As mentioned previously, save the compass you can do an entire instrument scan in the Hurri with the cockpit bars highly visible.

However, you indicate here you're a fixed viewpoint user. You have a very restricted view of the world compared to those of us using constant panning view options, so you're entitled to a different opinion. Just note it doesn't apply to everyone.

If your distance vision is represented by blurry bar edges, your cockpit vision is unrealistic. And, conversely, I AGREE WITH YOU that if your near vision is correct, your far vision is out.

Simply trading one for the other does NOT equal progress.

You are looking at a 2D, non-stereo representation. It ain't never going to be "real" in terms of what you see unless you are sitting in a real live aircraft. What, for instance, would you propose to do with the canopy struts that are immediately to your left and right? Same effect as the canopy struts two or three feet in front of you (this, of course, would be incorrect)? Or are you just for altering the center frame? You'd need it to be a variable effect all over the canopy. Talk about such a variable effect that's situationally and viewpoint dependant, and it gets more interesting (though involves a lot of processing). See-through edges all the time being highly realistic? Ahem.

If they aren't looking at their instruments then 99% of the time they are looking beyond their cockpit bars.

Agree. However as mentioned, it's not a simple instruments or sky world for everyone. YOU may switch between one and the other in their entirety but there's a large proportion out there who use one of TrackIR, Mouse, Trackball or Hatswitch to have constantly variable panning views. I'm moving between both, on the same screen, all the time.

Since they have 2 eyes instead of 1, and they are looking into the distance, the cockpit bars will appear to have transparent lateral edges.

Yes and no. If you try it in real life, switch between mono and stereo vision and THINK about it, yes, it's there. However, your brain does this processing for you and you don't notice it per se. It's just there. With a simulator, you're working with a 2D representation. If you plonk transparent edges onto the screen your brain won't filter them out as if they were part of a 3D whole, it'll just say "hey, that bar has a transparent left and right side". This will NOT be the same effect as two eyes in three dimensions, how can it be? This is fairly key!

This thread is for those who wish to address what a pilot with 2 eyes instead of 1 eye would see, when looking beyond their cockpit bars, _regardless of their current head position_.

Actually, I think this thread is for those who just want to be able to get situational awareness closer to real life. It's not just for people who share your opinion, this is a discussion forum. Don't think anyone argues against better SA. This topic has been around for ages, it's just morphed into a cockpit bar transparency one over time as this camp shouts the loudest. Reminiscent of the 190 glass refraction debate. Addressing pinhead viewpoint centres is just as important, and would enable you to comfortably track that plane currently obscured by your canopy bars. Trying to represent the outside world on a 2D panel leaves you with many unrealistic options, it's just down to which one(s) you implement.

It's probably too late for this feature to be implemented in this current simulation however it would be a welcome addition to "Battle of Britain".

For you. For me too, if it was optional, just like Cockpit Off, and equal attention is paid to more freedom of motion in the viewpoints.

At the end of the day, I appreciate some aircraft are harder than others to fight with in this Sim because of this issue. I appreciate what you're saying would ease this imbalance somewhat. I ain't, however, going to be told a blanket transparency application to cockpit bar edges is more "real". It just isn't. It's just another compromise in representing 3D in 2D, like any other. Have it as an option by all means, just don't make Oleg force the rest of us to use it, don't fancy having my immersion killed in that manner!

Cheers, this is an entertaining one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SSS

MiloMorai
01-16-2004, 04:32 AM
I would like to see cockpit off done with the canopy framing eliminated, or have a wire-frame for it. Leave the rest of the airframe alone so that it not a Wunder Woman view.

How is this idea SSS?

SpinSpinSugar
01-16-2004, 04:56 AM
Absolutely fine with me MiloMorai. I'm all for choice, and as long as the server you're on supports it, absolutely it's a great idea (as are any of these). You could actually Split-S effectively on such servers, for starters, and it would probably be a good compromise for those unhappy with full cockpit on settings but who dislike wonderwoman view.

I'm just 100% against it being a new permanent development for everyone in the name of progress for the reasons above, s'all.

Cheers,

SSS

ElAurens
01-16-2004, 05:08 AM
Thanks for the reasoned reply SSS. Your final comment on immersion rings true with me. I have been following this thread from the beginning, and you have been the first to call it what it really is. A debate on situational awareness, or lack of same, in a 2D environment. This is a topic in which there can be no clear choice. All of the alternatives mentioned are little more than bandages applied to an incureable wound. Since there is no cure for this particular wound with the technology that can be forseen in the future, we should be able to select the bandage that works best for us on an individual basis, and, that will be best for all participants on a server. (Bandwidth limitations vs. extra computations needed for transparent struts/panels/etc...).

Personally I choose no bandage, because this wound, for myself at least, is quite small and not a bother...

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

nearmiss
01-16-2004, 09:10 AM
The interesting, but sad thing about this thread is http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

We're just talking to ourselves. This thread can have 50 pages and I don't think 1C:Maddox will pay any attention to it. Look back over the past few months via the search engine for postings by Oleg_Maddox...pretty slim at best.

Just from the comments on this thread it is obvious something should be done. A fix of some type is needed. Regardless, it will probably remain status quo. We haven't even had a response from 1C:Maddox to encourage or refute the ideas of this topic and this isn't the first time it's been discussed on IL2-FB boards.

I'd say it will take something that tweaks Oleg's hot button to get something done... LOL http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Personally I vote for providing a switch to enable transluscent (not transparent) cockpit frame bars.

------------------------ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Recon_609IAP
01-16-2004, 10:39 AM
That is interesting idea MiloMorai.

I think I like it - let me think more http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I don't want wire frame wings though

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

MiloMorai
01-16-2004, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
That is interesting idea MiloMorai.

I think I like it - let me think more http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I don't want wire frame wings though

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not fussy on the wireframes either. This was simular to a proposal I put forth early (another thread) about WW view > moving the gunsight recticle closer to the bottom of the screen and restricting the amount of the 360 viewable, and no forward down viewing (a/c structure would limit the vertical view like a cam follower would do).

Aaron_GT
01-16-2004, 11:04 AM
Here's a thought, based on the Shift-f1 toggle -
if head movement can be enabled in future, maybe
a macro to do a little 'head wiggle' left and
right might allow a pilot to look around the
struts, without needing to make them transparent.

I'd also like to see the head move left and
right as you look to dead 6, like WB3 virtual
cockpits.

tagert
01-17-2004, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Well, I was going to leave it alone but as Tagert came along and agreed with everything Navy_Fighter said I guess I'll have to respond to add a counterpoint to all the back slapping. Sorry, I have a headache and I'm a bit cranky http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Feeling a little left out huh? Ah, come here big guy Ill slap your back for you! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Ignoring the "I assume you're not a real pilot, see" patronisation, this is just plain incorrect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Might be incorrect for a civilian aircraft in peace time.. or a modern day fighter with all the wizz-bang gadgets... or the NAV portion of WWII fighter, over friendly territory... but once they got in the ZONE only a fool would not be spending the majority of his time (99%) scanning the sky... That is all they had to go on in WWII. I find that many modern civilian cestan pilot have a problem relating to that. So to recap, In WWII real combat pilots looked at their instruments... They look beyond their cockpit bars most of the time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Do you guys ever fly the Hurricane?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, love that plane!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
I'm getting the impression this is a 109/190 pilot bugbear.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your impressions are out of calibration! I have been a US steel pilot from the get go... P39, P47, and now the wonderful P51

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Which is fair enough, I guess, they have a very restricted view.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No guess about it, they do have a very restricted view.. Especially when you consider the gun sight is even more restricted due to the FACT the sim does not model glass refraction.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
The assertion that you can't see the canopy when looking at your instruments is laughable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh? Ahhhh Ok... what ever.. I don't really see how that factors into the topic at hand... but it really depends on which aircraft your talking about, and which part of that aircraft instruments your looking at.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
I am a TrackIR user
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Mee too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
and my viewpoint is in CONSTANT motion between the two, as indeed chaps, it is in real life.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100% unless your definition of REAL LIFE is REAL CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT or REAL MODERN JET FIGHTERS... but for WWII not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
My big 'ole monitor has no problem showing me both on screen.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Like I said... I don't think the topic is CAN YOU SEE THE COCKPIT BARS AND THE DASH BOARD AT THE SAME TIME... the TOPIC at hand, as far as I can tell, is HOW TO MODEL THE COCKPIT TO MAKE UP FOR THE LIMITATIONS OF THE 21" PC MONITOR.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Admittedly, I don't tend to dogfight in real life,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
but other phases of flight are similar, especially with the speed bar off.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmm see above... WWII, friendly territory, NAV portion, agreed, the rest not even close.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
As mentioned previously, save the compass you can do an entire instrument scan in the Hurri with the cockpit bars highly visible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh.. you are really stuck on that.. no body is saying you couldn't... We are just kicking around ideas of how to make the PC experience more like the real one.. WE ALL KNOW THE PC IS NOT EQUAL TO THE REAL ONE!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
However, you indicate here you're a fixed viewpoint user.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And again your Your impressions are out of calibration! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your impressions are out of calibration
You have a very restricted view of the world compared to those of us using constant panning view options, so you're entitled to a different opinion. Just note it doesn't apply to everyone.[/QUOTE]WRONG! The VIEW AREA is equal, you gain nothing with TrackIR, it is the same view area... How you move it depends, but be it keyboard, mouse, TrackIR, NewView, etc the AREA is the same and not a restricted view of the world compared to TrackIR. Unless your referring to the old TrackIR drivers that enable you to cheat and see a little more of your six then the other views.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
If your distance vision is represented by blurry bar edges, your cockpit vision is unrealistic. And, conversely, I AGREE WITH YOU that if your near vision is correct, your far vision is out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh? It looks like you contradicted yourself here? But Ill give you the benefit of the doubt that it was a type-o... If you do bother to re-state this, please note if your talking about the game or real life views here.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Simply trading one for the other does NOT equal progress.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmmm from this I get the impression that you think the semi-transparent cockpit bars are not a good way to model how the human eyes work in real life? Note here I said model... not equal to real... there is a big difference.. NO simulation of anything will ever be the real thing... We have to make concessions sometimes to account for the FREAKING FACT that it aint real and that it is on a little 21" PC monitor.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
You are looking at a 2D, non-stereo representation. It ain't never going to be "real" in terms of what you see unless you are sitting in a real live aircraft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Duh! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And on that note nobody... and I mean NOBODY is stating otherwise!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
What, for instance, would you propose to do with the canopy struts that are immediately to your left and right? Same effect as the canopy struts two or three feet in front of you (this, of course, would be incorrect)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I see your problem.. you don't realize the goal here.. The GOAL is NOT go back in time and put your life on the line in a real P51.. The GOAL here is to try and make a simulated cockpit... the word simulated all ready implys that it aint real.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Or are you just for altering the center frame? You'd need it to be a variable effect all over the canopy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If your goal is to simulate how the eye focuses.. yes, but that aint what we are simulating.. what we are simulating, for the most part, is the dog fight, and where are you looking in the dog fight? BEYOND THE COCKPIT at the enemy aircraft trying to maintain a visual on it to position your aircraft for a shot at it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Talk about such a variable effect that's situationally and viewpoint dependant, and it gets more interesting (though involves a lot of processing). See-through edges all the time being highly realistic? Ahem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Goal is not to simulate how your eyes focus but to make a more realistic like cockpit view.. Now pay close att to the next two statements

1) all ways solid cockpit bars are not realistic
2) all ways semi-transparent cockpit bars are not realistic

But, semi-transparent is more realistic then solid when you know how the eye would be focussed when looking beyond the cockpit!! WHICH IS WHERE WE SPEED 99% OF OUR TIME IN A COMBAT FLIGHT SIM... Now if you want to talk about Microsoft CIVILIAN flight simulator (i.e. non combat) then it is just the opposite.. in that 99% of what you do in that sim is NAV.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
_If they aren't looking at their instruments then 99% of the time they are looking beyond their cockpit bars._

Agree. However as mentioned, it's not a simple instruments or sky world for everyone. YOU may switch between one and the other in their entirety but there's a large proportion out there who use one of TrackIR, Mouse, Trackball or Hatswitch to have constantly variable panning views. I'm moving between both, on the same screen, all the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So... the point here is that in combat... i.e. the dog fight... your looking at the other aircraft that is beyond the cockpit 99% of the time.... THEREFORE simulate the cockpit view AS SUCH!! Make the cockpit bars semi trans parent to *simulate* the fact that your eyes would be focused on the distant aircraft... *GRANTED* the cockpit panel would still be in focus.. but that is the limitations we are dealing with.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
_Since they have 2 eyes instead of 1, and they are looking into the distance, the cockpit bars will appear to have transparent lateral edges._

Yes and no. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just Yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
If you try it in real life, switch between mono and stereo vision and THINK about it, yes, it's there. However, your brain does this processing for you and you don't notice it per se. It's just there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now you catching on!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
With a simulator, you're working with a 2D representation. If you plonk transparent edges onto the screen your brain won't filter them out as if they were part of a 3D whole, it'll just say "hey, that bar has a transparent left and right side". This will NOT be the same effect as two eyes in three dimensions, how can it be? This is fairly key!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Bud you loosing sight of the goal here!!! We are not trying to make a game that simulates how eye focus... we are trying to make a simulated cockpit.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
_This thread is for those who wish to address what a pilot with 2 eyes instead of 1 eye would see, when looking beyond their cockpit bars, _regardless of their current head position_._

Actually, I think this thread is for those who just want to be able to get situational awareness closer to real life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>DING!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
It's not just for people who share your opinion, this is a discussion forum. Don't think anyone argues against better SA.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your doing a pretty good job of it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
This topic has been around for ages, it's just morphed into a cockpit bar transparency one over time as this camp shouts the loudest. Reminiscent of the 190 glass refraction debate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Addressing pinhead viewpoint centres is just as important,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't be too hard on yourself, granted trying to simulate how eye focus in a combat flight sim is pinheadish... but that is just your take on what it is we are talking about. Just know that it isn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
and would enable you to comfortably track that plane currently obscured by your canopy bars.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As in RL

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Trying to represent the outside world on a 2D panel leaves you with many unrealistic options, it's just down to which one(s) you implement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Finally! Exactly! Yes!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
_It's probably too late for this feature to be implemented in this current simulation however it would be a welcome addition to "Battle of Britain"._

For you. For me too, if it was optional, just like Cockpit Off, and equal attention is paid to more freedom of motion in the viewpoints.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Options are all ways best.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
At the end of the day, I appreciate some aircraft are harder than others to fight with in this Sim because of this issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As they would STILL BE with semi-transparent cockpit bars.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
I appreciate what you're saying would ease this imbalance somewhat. I ain't, however, going to be told a blanket transparency application to cockpit bar edges is more "real". It just isn't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry, it is! The key word here is MORE.. As in MORE so then TOTALLY SOLID BARS.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
It's just another compromise in representing 3D in 2D, like any other.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>DING! Man.. how do you do it? One second you seem to understand.. Then the next you go off on some tangent that the PC monitor is not a real cockpit... We know that, we are just trying to make the EXPERIENCE MORE REALISTIC!! PLEASE NOTE I DID NOT SAY *REAL* I SAID *MORE REALISTIC*

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Have it as an option by all means, just don't make Oleg force the rest of us to use it, don't fancy having my immersion killed in that manner!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm all for options!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Cheers, this is an entertaining one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not as entertaining as your back and forth was! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

SpinSpinSugar
01-17-2004, 01:01 PM
Heh heh, well Tagert, the increasingly pedantic nature of your response would indicate your argument is running out of steam somewhat - as would the fact you're not actually adding any new points.

I'm not going to add another massive scrolley quote response as it's not going to further the discussion any. I've made my points as clearly as I can, I have responded to all of your arguments. Others above have no problem following them and I'm not going to spend ages writing it all again in words of fewer syllables for you. There's no contradiction there at all, I'm afraid.

It's also VERY apparent that you never fly VOW or similar. You seem to be in combat for the entirety of your FB experience. In an online war, you may be in actual combat for 10 or 20% of a mission, sometimes not at all. This is certainly closer to read world sorties than constant respawn and hectic DF action. I can appreciate that if this is where you're coming from then you and I see very different sides of this simulator, which is why your needs are very different from mine. Again, please do not assume that your needs are more "real". They are not. They suit the flying you do, which I accept. Please extend the same courtesy to the rest of us!

We're both happy with SA modifications being optional, so lets agree to differ on the detail. Nowhere have I demanded that people not be allowed the option.

Back slapping appreciated, but don't get too friendly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SSS

tagert
01-17-2004, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
Heh heh, well Tagert, the increasingly pedantic nature of your response would indicate your argument is running out of steam somewhat - as would the fact you're not actually adding any new points.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now Now Now... Just because you couldn't comprehend it... like the difference between REAL and MORE REALISTIC does not mean it is out of steam.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
I'm not going to add another massive scrolley quote response as it's not going to further the discussion any.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed, in that your fist one didn't either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
I've made my points as clearly as I can, I have responded to all of your arguments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hardly! Not sure what it was you were trying to say.. At some points you agreed with us, then you went on to point out that a PC sim is not a real airplane.. then agree with us.. then in the next breath not agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
Others above have no problem following them and I'm not going to spend ages writing it all again in words of fewer syllables for you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, the number of syllables was fine.. It is just all the switch backs, agree one sec, disagree the next and the master of the obvious statements that tend to get old

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
There's no contradiction there at all, I'm afraid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
It's also VERY apparent that you never fly VOW or similar.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, your perception is out of calibration. I love the likes of VOW.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
You seem to be in combat for the entirety of your FB experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hardly! I have hallways been an advocate for the thrill of the hunt over the multi kill Quake types of servers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
In an online war, you may be in actual combat for 10 or 20% of a mission, sometimes not at all. This is certainly closer to read world sorties than constant respawn and hectic DF action.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Never said it wasn't! As I pointed out in WWII pilots spent most of their time looking beyond the cockpit looking for the enemy.. As one does in VOW and other realistic servers. Granted there is some small amount of NAV that goes on in FB.. but it is very SCALED down from the REAL 8+ hour fights that one might experience in a P51 escort in WWII. Again, you having trouble between REAL and SIMULATIONS... May I give you some advice? When talking about *things* be clear as to if your referring to REAL or SIMULATIONS.. it might help you realize that what your currently saying is not valid.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
I can appreciate that if this is where you're coming from then you and I see very different sides of this simulator, which is why your needs are very different from mine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>From the way you jump around.. agree.. disagree I don't think you know where your coming from let alone me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
Again, please do not assume that your needs are more "real". They are not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Never said anything about my *feelings* or *needs* I simply pointed out that SOLID COCKPIT bars are LESS REAL then SEMI-TRANSPARENT COCKPIT bars... No need there, just simply two-eyed FACTS

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
They suit the flying you do, which I accept. Please extend the same courtesy to the rest of us!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of me saying I'm all for options did you not understand? Wouldn't the option to make them SOLID provide you the courtesy you require?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
We're both happy with SA modifications being optional, so lets agree to differ on the detail. Nowhere have I demanded that people not be allowed the option.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nor have I! I was just trying to figure out what the heck you were asking for... in that you jumped back and forth so much.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
Back slapping appreciated, but don't get too friendly
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No worries there!

TAGERT

SpinSpinSugar
01-18-2004, 04:42 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Heh, well, sorry you didn't understand any of my argument, but I don't think tit-for-tat "yes it is", "no it isn't" responses are benefitting anyone so I think I'll leave this here. I disagree wholly with your "facts", and you can't see mine. Everyone else seems to have left this thread long ago, so good day to you, sir!

Cheers,

SSS

tagert
01-18-2004, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
Heh, well, sorry you didn't understand any of my argument,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, no, I understood it just fine.. what I don't understand is how you could agree about something and disagree about that same something within the same thread, let alone the same post in that thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
but I don't think tit-for-tat "yes it is", "no it isn't" responses are benefitting anyone so I think I'll leave this here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed.. and thank you.. now maybe we can get back to the original topic!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
I disagree wholly with your "facts", and you can't see mine.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The only FACT I have made any reference to is how the human eyes work. And due to the FACT that we have stereoscopic vision we can SEE AROUND THINGS like they are not even there.. Now you can disagree with that FACT and FOOL or CONFUSE yourself into thinking it is not a FACT by agreeing and then disagree but it WILL NOT change the FACT that it is FACT. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
Everyone else seems to have left this thread long ago, so good day to you, sir!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed.. about the time you showed up too.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by SpinSpinSugar:
Cheers,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Likewise I'm sure

TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
01-19-2004, 06:31 AM
Rayban... what a great idea! Too bad nobody thought of this months before FB was started, huh?

Spin-spin-sugar: Why do you care WHAT the frames look like when you're viewing the instruments?

Perhaps the best pilots had only one eye and the rest had to wear a patch to be so good? And all wore neck graces? Then the view as is would be realistic for all the FR fetishists that don't seem to get out and look around enough!

Wheeee! Nothing will change! It is correct!
Okay, only correct in certain places and not others, that is how it is.


Neal

tagert
01-19-2004, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Rayban... what a great idea! Too bad nobody thought of this months before FB was started, huh?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually this topic has been around for some time... first started getting kick around about 10+ years ago around the time that Spectrum did Falcon 3.0 with the padlock... Next to Flight Models the simulation of what the pilot sees is dear to my hart! I brought/bring/bringing up this topic up here about every couple of months... Too bad it finally got leggs too late for IL2FB.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Spin-spin-sugar: Why do you care WHAT the frames look like when you're viewing the instruments?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Funny.. in my experiences on this topic I have found the civilian pilots to be the hardest ones to sell on this simply fact of how the human eyes work... Military and Sim pilots tend to get it.. but some of the civilian ones are the ones most dead set against it.. I can only conclude that due to the fact that the majority of civilian (90%+) training deals with NAV and COMS instead of stick movments (ie flying) and thus they *they* tend to extrapolate that experiences into a dogfight situation... Apples and Oranges IMHO! Which is not to imply that military pilots don't use NAV and COMS.. just that when they are conducting a dog fight... things like NAV and COMS moves down the list of *important* things to be doing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Especially true for WWI, WWII, Korean.. and even NAM pilots where the dog fight was up close and personal.. Modern military pilots have to contend with that AND be able to do the modern warfare stuff, which does consist of alot of inside the cockpit *guage* watching, and *TYPICALLY* the fight STARTS WAY BEFORE THEY EVEN MAKE A VISUAL CONTACT.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Perhaps the best pilots had only one eye and the rest had to wear a patch to be so good? And all wore neck graces? Then the view as is would be realistic for all the FR fetishists that don't seem to get out and look around enough!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! I know.. I know.. strange how something that makes so much sense to some.. makes no sense to others.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Wheeee! Nothing will change! It is correct!
Okay, only correct in certain places and not others, that is how it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nah.. it will happen.. Not for IL2 or even BoB.. but it will happen... On the scale of things.. the flight models are easy... in comparison to AI,Damage Models, Visuals... Some developer will realize this some day and take advantage of the void and make some $ off of it.

TAGERT

[This message was edited by tagert on Mon January 19 2004 at 04:40 PM.]

WWMaxGunz
01-19-2004, 01:11 PM
I was being sarcastic. This topic came up when IL2 wasn't a year old, IIRC, and surface every so often right here. It's been discussed to death although usually with better reception than this time. There's even been some really nice graphics and diagrams last time it was around.

Usually someone restarts a topic they mention previous threads, link to them or just add to the old one to get it going. RBJ starts this off like he's just had this idea, so I couldn't help mentioning how nice an idea it really is. No results and over 2 years, I'd say some other developer may do it and Oleg will probably do head movement before then instead. Isn't Olegs' BoB supposed to have head movement?


Neal

starfighter1
01-19-2004, 02:42 PM
hi,
remember all this discussion about the uggly FW190 view + of some more planes in the past(Me-262../P-47/P-51) and in development(Spitfire..)...it's not a dead horse, same to some features like this thread is looking for:

last time I tested X-plane 7.3 with a special view feature(I guess it was the 'W' key) and the pilot head moves up , panel zoomes in and pilot eyes could look a bit over the desk of the front shelf.

anyway: a head movement in BoB could be interest if the pilots hight of view is more compare to real view in this new sim as now.

At IL2/FB in most of the planes the virtual pilots are sitting in a gnomish low position, beside some other problems of base design and overframed sizes of struts etc.

But... many users don't care about this important points in a pc-sim.

And many developers don't care about to change this.

If some of You have a answer let us know.

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

tagert
01-19-2004, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
I was being sarcastic.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
This topic came up when IL2 wasn't a year old, IIRC, and surface every so often right here.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yupp, stated a few of those myself right here.. been involved in any I have seen here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
It's been discussed to death
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To death... well I guess... but like a lot of things around here it DESERVES to be brought up again from time to time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
although usually with better reception than this time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Noticed that too... but the PRO's greatly out weight the CON's even here... Most of the retractors to this current topic don't seem to understand what it is we are saying we want.. let alone what they want.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
There's even been some really nice graphics and diagrams last time it was around. Usually someone restarts a topic they mention previous threads, link to them or just add to the old one to get it going.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I remember someone posting some nice stuff, I wish I would have saved them.. Now with the new news group software they are most likely lost. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
RBJ starts this off like he's just had this idea, so I couldn't help mentioning how nice an idea it really is.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Well wouldn't be the first time RBJ took credit for something... next he will be telling us about a neat new way to mix music by scratching records! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
No results and over 2 years,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. I truly belive that the reasonable people here KNOW it is too late for IL2... and are hoping it is something that will get done in BoB.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
I'd say some other developer may do it and Oleg will probably do head movement before then instead. Isn't Olegs' BoB supposed to have head movement?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If so, I have not seen anything on that... On that note, I have talked to a few so called experts here.. And they tell me that the head lean thing is NOT easy to do in 3D rendered cockpits... In that the current cockpit COUNTS ON you NOT leaning... Therefore they only have to draw the HEAD ON view of the cockpit... I don't claim to understand all the 3D details, but, from what I gathered it kind of makes sense... In a nut shell they only have to draw the HEAD ON SHOT... i.e. NOT THE SIDES of the 3D cockpit. IF THAT IS TRUE... and we went to a LEAN method it would require A LOT more development time for each cockpit... Where as with the semi-transparent canopy bars... you could still draw then as they do now... and let the vid card hardware do the work... But some of the people that are in the know claim that semi-transparent is 4 times harder for the vid card to do then a solid item... Assuming that is also true the only question left is WHICH IS EASIER for the developer to do... Because that is what he will most liky do. So is it easier to draw a multi perspective 3D cockpit so one can lean... or just wait six months to a year and let the vid card hardware become 4 times faster... I'm guessing that later.. in that the software developer does not have to do much more than he is now, and the hardware will make up for the difference.

TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
01-20-2004, 03:27 AM
It depends on the vid card. Anything that can do the newer water should have no problems with translucency.

Head on view? The head can turn, the view is not painted IMHO as that would be too much to save for a full hemispheric view, no 2 at least with gunsight and non-gunsight positions.

The 'problem' lies more with the 3D projection system that works fast enough for good frame rates. Angles appear off the farther from center you look, perhaps due to rendering on a flat screen as if it was a concave surface and avoiding a cuople or so trig operations in the process, over entire textures! When that gets done correctly in hardware, video chipsets, then we'll see better. Perhaps by then VR monitor goggles will have dropped in price while increased in quality to at least 1024x768 (but really 1280x960 would be more useful -- 640x480 x2) and stereovision rendering will get put in the chips too. Software should ideally only have to give layout, view position and angle while the vidcard does the rest but it's not a perfect world.

The alternative is to have the cockpit view stretch around when moving the head off from a prime area. Some people get dizzy sick when that happens and some don't. Remember the halls in Castle Wolfenstein?

Developers should know that in any sim or game, the weaknesses become some of the if not the most important part. Especially when in prior sims or games the same aspect has been handled much better regardless of compromises. Better is better. The view system of IL2 has always been a bit of a killer for me, yet I tried anyway. Until I upgrade or fix something I can't get it to run from 1.11 on anyway so I'll try later.

[hijack]
I could also pick on the AI with the collision rates but who has ever done a golden AI anyway? I remember one sim that allowed friendlies to fly through each other. It looked bad but only when it happened and it allowed good gameplay offline as there was no such thing as coops. That was a good compromise but a tough call. FS AI's is another area where new ground needs to be made, much less broken.


Neal

tagert
01-20-2004, 10:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
It depends on the vid card. Anything that can do the newer water should have no problems with translucency.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is my belief too.. but I'm no expert.. but some who have no problem here claiming to be experts say that translucency (semi-transparent) is 4 times harder on the video card... any video card.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
Head on view?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. hard to explain.. I wish I had a picture.. but for example assumed you your looking down at the top of a house... and your centered on the TV antenna on top of the house.. now the antenna is say 5 feet above the roof.. thus 5 feet closer to you.. Now from where you are you can see the roof of the house and the TV antenna... but you can not see the pole that the TV antenna is sitting on... because the TV antenna itself blocks it.. In real life the pole goes from the top of the roof to the TV antenna.. now if you were to draw that for a simulation... and you knew that the person looking down at the house would NEVER move left, right, up, down and remain centered on that TV antenna.. then you could get away with NOT DRAWING the POLE

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
The head can turn, the view is not painted IMHO as that would be too much to save for a full hemispheric view, no 2 at least with gunsight and non-gunsight positions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok.. I got the head can turn part... and that the 3D is not painted.. but lost me on the later.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
The 'problem' lies more with the 3D projection system that works fast enough for good frame rates. Angles appear off the farther from center you look, perhaps due to rendering on a flat screen as if it was a concave surface and avoiding a cuople or so trig operations in the process, over entire textures! When that gets done correctly in hardware, video chipsets, then we'll see better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmm ok I see what your saying.. As a mater of fact.. back in the Fw190 gunsight view days when Oleg was actually posting he posted a few views of the Fw190 cockpit with the pilot view MOVED UP... to show everyone that the line of sight through the gun sight would be messed up... And I do seem to recall that from that view it did look a bit... off? warped? But at the same time.. Jane's WWII Fighters allowed you to move your ORIGIN view around in the cockpit.. and those 3D cockpits didn't seem to have a problem with it.. In short, I'm leading more towards the idea that the so called expert that told me it would be much harder to draw the cockpit is FULL OF IT!! That is to say disregard that HEAD ON statement of mine and my TV antenna example... I think the pole is all ready there! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
Perhaps by then VR monitor goggles will have dropped in price while increased in quality to at least 1024x768 (but really 1280x960 would be more useful -- 640x480 x2) and stereovision rendering will get put in the chips too. Software should ideally only have to give layout, view position and angle while the vidcard does the rest but it's not a perfect world.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah HMD's I cant wait.. one of these days.. talk about immersion!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
The alternative is to have the cockpit view stretch around when moving the head off from a prime area. Some people get dizzy sick when that happens and some don't. Remember the halls in Castle Wolfenstein?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ahh the HALLS! I do recall that.. didn't make me sick though.. Nice thing about flight sims though is we DON'T have to move the ORIGIN very far.. mater of fact in most aircraft you couldn't (Bf109, Spitfire) because your head would hit the canopy... But they might have to fudge that a bit to account for the one eye vs two eyes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
Developers should know that in any sim or game, the weaknesses become some of the if not the most important part. Especially when in prior sims or games the same aspect has been handled much better regardless of compromises. Better is better. The view system of IL2 has always been a bit of a killer for me, yet I tried anyway. Until I upgrade or fix something I can't get it to run from 1.11 on anyway so I'll try later.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dang that sucks! Hey what did you think of Jane's WWII Fighters 3D cockpits... did you ever move the origin view around in there? I seem to recall it doing a pretty good job of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
[hijack]
I could also pick on the AI with the collision rates but who has ever done a golden AI anyway?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmm golden AI.. to date every sim has had some kind of weakness in some category of it's AI.. But IL2's seems to be weak in every category of AI!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
I remember one sim that allowed friendlies to fly through each other. It looked bad but only when it happened and it allowed good gameplay offline as there was no such thing as coops. That was a good compromise but a tough call. FS AI's is another area where new ground needs to be made, much less broken.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%... In the future it wont be the flight models that we will be talking about... that code has been around for 30 years... and there is only so much you can do to it.. Where as AI is wide open! I don't think you could ever stop adding to it... That and damage models... you could make that pretty endless too.

TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
01-20-2004, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
[QUOTE] by WWMaxGunz:
It depends on the vid card. Anything that can do the newer water should have no problems with translucency.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Tagert:
Is my belief too.. but I'm no expert.. but some who have no problem here claiming to be experts say that translucency (semi-transparent) is 4 times harder on the video card... any video card.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see a problem. It's not like we're not being pushed to upgrade. The water is an option and people with better hardware always have an advantage. Hard core players can use older cards or stop flaming players who feel the need for things like icons maybe. And pigs will fly too.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
The head can turn, the view is not painted IMHO as that would be too much to save for a full hemispheric view, no 2 at least with gunsight and non-gunsight positions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Tagert:
Ok.. I got the head can turn part... and that the 3D is not painted.. but lost me on the later. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger that. The render system handles what you see. The game runs a 3D model. If you've seen the screenshots without the textures that showed the cockpits in wireframe to show the strut details then you've seen a more bare representation of the internal modelling.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
The 'problem' lies more with the 3D projection system that works fast enough for good frame rates. Angles appear off the farther from center you look, perhaps due to rendering on a flat screen as if it was a concave surface and avoiding a cuople or so trig operations in the process, over entire textures! When that gets done correctly in hardware, video chipsets, then we'll see better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Tagert:
Emmm ok I see what your saying.. As a mater of fact.. back in the Fw190 gunsight view days when Oleg was actually posting he posted a few views of the Fw190 cockpit with the pilot view MOVED UP... to show everyone that the line of sight through the gun sight would be messed up... And I do seem to recall that from that view it did look a bit... off? warped? But at the same time.. Jane's WWII Fighters allowed you to move your ORIGIN view around in the cockpit.. and those 3D cockpits didn't seem to have a problem with it.. In short, I'm leading more towards the idea that the so called expert that told me it would be much harder to draw the cockpit is FULL OF IT!! That is to say disregard that HEAD ON statement of mine and my TV antenna example... I think the pole is all ready there! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif [QUOTE]

Yah the pole is modelled. Just like you can see behind the stick onscreen when it moves.

I wish that Oleg had shown the view moved down where it should be and then lowered the frame bar to account for refraction. As it is, the view is higher than it should be by the negative of the amount that refraction would displace the view. Problem is that it doesn't work, not like that at all. They made the wrong compromise, IMO.

With Janes I expect they may have used a different method for the view rendering. I don't know if they were full 3D or 3D outside and 2D inside. I did hear a lot about the relaxed FM to say the least and wonder if the graphics load was so heavy that the FM cuoldn't be so detailed. The average PC back then wasn't so hot by far as now either.

[QUOTE] by WWMaxGunz:
Perhaps by then VR monitor goggles will have dropped in price while increased in quality to at least 1024x768 (but really 1280x960 would be more useful -- 640x480 x2) and stereovision rendering will get put in the chips too. Software should ideally only have to give layout, view position and angle while the vidcard does the rest but it's not a perfect world.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Tagert:
Ah HMD's I cant wait.. one of these days.. talk about immersion!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a friend with I-Glasses TV goggles and they are terrific. Monitor quality costs more than I can justify, even TV quality at this point. It's like a 50" set about 4 feet away with those goggles Doug has. You don't have to wait if you've got the jack to lay out, but I think it's well over a grand for monitor goggles. Still, there's little or no stereo view support in games.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
The alternative is to have the cockpit view stretch around when moving the head off from a prime area. Some people get dizzy sick when that happens and some don't. Remember the halls in Castle Wolfenstein?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Tagert:
Ahh the HALLS! I do recall that.. didn't make me sick though.. Nice thing about flight sims though is we DON'T have to move the ORIGIN very far.. mater of fact in most aircraft you couldn't (Bf109, Spitfire) because your head would hit the canopy... But they might have to fudge that a bit to account for the one eye vs two eyes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just turning your head brings your eyes closer to the side of the canopy and able to get a better angle over the side and to the rear. The POV should move with the turn but I believe it's based on the center of the pilot head and not the eyes.

Whether you get sick or not depends on how your head is wired and that's as much from growing up as heredity.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
Developers should know that in any sim or game, the weaknesses become some of the if not the most important part. Especially when in prior sims or games the same aspect has been handled much better regardless of compromises. Better is better. The view system of IL2 has always been a bit of a killer for me, yet I tried anyway. Until I upgrade or fix something I can't get it to run from 1.11 on anyway so I'll try later.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Tagert:
Dang that sucks! Hey what did you think of Jane's WWII Fighters 3D cockpits... did you ever move the origin view around in there? I seem to recall it doing a pretty good job of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah it sucks. I've never been able to try the Mustang, La-7, etc. The splash screen starts up and then the sim goes to never-never land.

I never got the Janes. Wasn't interested in eye candy without guts and bone underneath. I was getting more and more hardcore back then. I was into EAW and then MA. EAW had *very* good balance of features and MA... well the bugs killed campaign for me but just flying around and doing missions was well worth the sticker on that one! Very good modelling even if not as tight as Oleg does and the view system is still the best I've seen but then I haven't played Janes. I can get Janes for $10 or less so maybe it'd be good for laffs. <w>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
[hijack]
I could also pick on the AI with the collision rates but who has ever done a golden AI anyway?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Tagert:
Emmm golden AI.. to date every sim has had some kind of weakness in some category of it's AI.. But IL2's seems to be weak in every category of AI!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errrrm! I had CFS and wasn't exactly thrilled with those AI's. I spent a couple years with AOTP and AOE and those AI's cheated to the point of being warped around where you couldn't see, but that was to add challenge. And farther back through Jetfighter and back to the Atari F15 Strike Eagle the Ai's were complete jokes! They didn't run into each other but they didn't have to deal with flying, it's easier that way!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
I remember one sim that allowed friendlies to fly through each other. It looked bad but only when it happened and it allowed good gameplay offline as there was no such thing as coops. That was a good compromise but a tough call. FS AI's is another area where new ground needs to be made, much less broken.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> bt Tagert:
Agreed 100%... In the future it wont be the flight models that we will be talking about... that code has been around for 30 years... and there is only so much you can do to it.. Where as AI is wide open! I don't think you could ever stop adding to it... That and damage models... you could make that pretty endless too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ohhhhh no! Up until 1998 that I know of and possibly earlier the desktop FM's were strictly table driven! The tables got more and more complex to be sure but mainstream PC's were not powerful enough or had enough memory to support better. Then I guess the tables got in some algorithms and with Red Baron 2 there is a physics based FM, the first I know of. There's tables of characteristics that the formulas use but its' not like earlier where your attitude and change of position read directly off from table data! EAW flys by formula, the file layouts are available which has kept the sim alive beyond Microprose and I guess copies still sell.

The only full flight sims I know of for *maybe* 30 years are the pro boxes that tend to be full motion and run on banks of computers. more like 20 years, possibly less really. I've flown a few back in the later 80's as part of a development job I had. I can tell you those things were very good for the times and with the sadistic trainers causing equipment failures you'd walk out sweating if not shaking and feeling very good! The feel of real was there. even the pro commercial pilots I sat courses with had that to say. Still, those units were not up to combat simming and we only flew at "night" with no aerobatics.

Neal

tagert
01-20-2004, 05:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
I don't see a problem. It's not like we're not being pushed to upgrade.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed... even if it is true that semi-trans is 4x harder.. the natural advancement of vid cards will make up for that in no time.. if not allready.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
The water is an option and people with better hardware always have an advantage.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually.. someone with a crappy vid cards usally goes for a lower resolution.. I did some testing.. I have a Gforce FX 5900 and at very high resolution I have a harder time spoting aircraft in the distance.. because the resolution of the "dot" representing the aircraft is smaller.. and the color seems to blend in more.. So, to put it short, I could go higher in resolution and still have a good frame rate.. but I dont! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
Hard core players can use older cards or stop flaming players who feel the need for things like icons maybe. And pigs will fly too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
I wish that Oleg had shown the view moved down where it should be and then lowered the frame bar to account for refraction. As it is, the view is higher than it should be by the negative of the amount that refraction would displace the view. Problem is that it doesn't work, not like that at all. They made the wrong compromise, IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
With Janes I expect they may have used a different method for the view rendering. I don't know if they were full 3D or 3D outside and 2D inside.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, it was 3D inside.. as you moved the origin around (left or right, not just zoom in and out like IL2) you could see the *sides* of the gunsight poking out...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
I did hear a lot about the relaxed FM to say the least and wonder if the graphics load was so heavy that the FM cuoldn't be so detailed. The average PC back then wasn't so hot by far as now either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup the FM's were pretty bad!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
I have a friend with I-Glasses TV goggles and they are terrific. Monitor quality costs more than I can justify, even TV quality at this point. It's like a 50" set about 4 feet away with those goggles Doug has. You don't have to wait if you've got the jack to lay out, but I think it's well over a grand for monitor goggles. Still, there's little or no stereo view support in games.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool! But I dont think I could justify them a this time either!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
Just turning your head brings your eyes closer to the side of the canopy and able to get a better angle over the side and to the rear. The POV should move with the turn but I believe it's based on the center of the pilot head and not the eyes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
I never got the Janes. Wasn't interested in eye candy without guts and bone underneath. I was getting more and more hardcore back then. I was into EAW and then MA. EAW had *very* good balance of features and MA... well the bugs killed campaign for me but just flying around and doing missions was well worth the sticker on that one! Very good modelling even if not as tight as Oleg does and the view system is still the best I've seen but then I haven't played Janes. I can get Janes for $10 or less so maybe it'd be good for laffs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah EAW.. took em years to finally get it out the door.. but it was worth it.. To date that is about the best all around sim ever made... The way the German AI would go after them bombers instead of them all gunning for you really made you feel like you were there and not some game made to make you the most important target. I loved that game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
Errrrm! I had CFS and wasn't exactly thrilled with those AI's. I spent a couple years with AOTP and AOE and those AI's cheated to the point of being warped around where you couldn't see, but that was to add challenge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AOTP and AOE.. that brings back memories.. not only did the AI cheat, but the AI got 3x more ammo then you did... but me and Nick Bell hacked the data files and made it so they didnt.. As a mater of fact I made alot of mods for AOTP and AOE.

http://groups.google.com/groups?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=aoe+aotp+tagert

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
Ohhhhh no! Up until 1998 that I know of and possibly earlier the desktop FM's were strictly table driven! The tables got more and more complex to be sure but mainstream PC's were not powerful enough or had enough memory to support better. Then I guess the tables got in some algorithms and with Red Baron 2 there is a physics based FM, the first I know of. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>When did 1942 Pacific Air War (PAW) come out? The predisoser to EAW.. I want to say around 1995ish.. In that it was the first PC sim to claim it was NOT using table based flight models... Granted it was all fixxed point math.. but it was a very nice flight model for it's time.. I caught alot of flack at that time with the Air Warrior crouwd by saying that the PAW flight model FELT better.. it was a very fluild motion.. something we take for granted these days..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
There's tables of characteristics that the formulas use but its' not like earlier where your attitude and change of position read directly off from table data! EAW flys by formula, the file layouts are available which has kept the sim alive beyond Microprose and I guess copies still sell.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmm you got a link to those?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
The only full flight sims I know of for *maybe* 30 years are the pro boxes that tend to be full motion and run on banks of computers. more like 20 years, possibly less really.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, I dindt mean PC games existed 30 years ago.. I meant the actuall MATH of it all is not big secret! It has been around for a long time.. I got an early copy of one in fortran.. The data that feeds into the math in the way of coeficents is another story though! That is where all the questions are left... in that alot of it does not exist for old WWII aircraft

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WWMaxGunz:
I've flown a few back in the later 80's as part of a development job I had. I can tell you those things were very good for the times and with the sadistic trainers causing equipment failures you'd walk out sweating if not shaking and feeling very good! The feel of real was there. even the pro commercial pilots I sat courses with had that to say. Still, those units were not up to combat simming and we only flew at "night" with no aerobatics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool.. some old PDP11s driving that thing Ill bet? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

Rogodin
01-20-2004, 10:12 PM
At 300 yards the silouttee is so small that the cockpit bars don't matter-why?-because you will turn the plane to follow the path bogie.

AT 50 feet or less the focus includes the cockpit bars-hence you would also need the DOF algo to caclulate the focus (a focus button), and a simple translucent cockpit bar structure won't compensate.

Proper focus is difficult enough when manipulating ingame photos, let along adjustments in real time-this is only the tip of the iceburg, and I see no reason to waste cpu cycles on a semi-translucent cockpit when we can barely run full aa and af ingame @ 1600 with playable frames.

I think it's idiotic considering the computational power of today's hardware.

Once we can simulate the focal properties of the human eye (even digital cameras have a diffuicult time) then we can move on to this topic.

rogo



rogo

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-12/554733/300.jpg

"Those who long for exaltation look upwards, but I look downwards for I am the exalted."
Thus Spake Zarathustra.

Diese_ist_shais
01-21-2004, 12:10 AM
I completely KNOW that EVEN with our current technology and EVEN with Nvidia's or ATI's most powerful video cards and other hardware, there is currently no way for us to achieve such a thing.

Our current technology does not yet allow us to mimic the focal behavior of the human eye.

In order to obtain such realism, you have to create a computer that is so powerful that only the extremely wealthy can afford them.

Even the Microsoft Corporation, which is a big global competitor to UBI Soft, has never achieved such a thing because of the excessive processing power that is required. Even Microsoft's latest combat simulator can't mimic the focal behavior of the human eye.

Trust me, I have used Microsoft's and UBI Soft's combat sim products for years.

Even if it is possible, it will be too espensive to acheive.

tagert
01-21-2004, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Diese_ist_shais:
I completely KNOW that EVEN with our current technology and EVEN with Nvidia's or ATI's most powerful video cards and other hardware, there is currently no way for us to achieve such a thing.

Our current technology does not yet allow us to mimic the focal behavior of the human eye.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah... good thing than NOBODY is asking for that!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Diese_ist_shais:
In order to obtain such realism, you have to create a computer that is so powerful that only the extremely wealthy can afford them.

Even the Microsoft Corporation, which is a big global competitor to UBI Soft, has never achieved such a thing because of the excessive processing power that is required. Even Microsoft's latest combat simulator can't mimic the focal behavior of the human eye.

Trust me, I have used Microsoft's and UBI Soft's combat sim products for years.

Even if it is possible, it will be too espensive to acheive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! And to be crystal NOBODY is asking for software to mimic the human eye, what we are asking for is software to mimic flight combat in WWII. In doing so we have to make concessions... i.e. there is no way to have the PC apply g forces to your body while sitting at the PC while playing the game.. but we know that it would happen if you were actually there, so to *SIMULATE* the g force effect the software makes the screen FADE TO BLACK for positive g's and FADE TO RED for negative g's thus PROVIDING A QUE to the player that if he were doing this in real life he would be pulling/pushing some g's.... NOW with that said, As we KNEW in ADVANCE about g forces, we also KNOW in ADVANCE how the eye works... and to SIMULATE the way the eye works one could SIMPLY make the cockpit bars semi-transparent... as the real human eye would do... Is it perfect? Nope, nothing in a SIMULATION EVER IS OR EVER WILL BE.. but it is much better then the solid-all-the-time we currently have.. now TRUST ME! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

tagert
01-21-2004, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rogodin:
At 300 yards the silouttee is so small that the cockpit bars don't matter-why?-because you will turn the plane to follow the path bogie.

AT 50 feet or less the focus includes the cockpit bars-hence you would also need the DOF algo to caclulate the focus (a focus button), and a simple translucent cockpit bar structure won't compensate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Trying to figure out how far the player is looking to make one thing in focus and another out of focus is crazy!! And to be clear no one is suggesting we do that!! We all ready live with the false "everything in focus all the time"... have been for years on PC sims. So, making the cockpit bar appear semi-transparent AS IF YOU LOOKING BEYOND THEM AT A BOGIE is no more false then what we have.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rogodin:
Proper focus is difficult enough when manipulating ingame photos, let along adjustments in real time-this is only the tip of the iceburg, and I see no reason to waste cpu cycles on a semi-translucent cockpit when we can barely run full aa and af ingame @ 1600 with playable frames.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! And it is a good thing no one is asking them to model focus. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rogodin:
I think it's idiotic considering the computational power of today's hardware.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! We should not try and model changing focus, we should just deal with the current crop of "in focus all the time" that we have been dealig with for years.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rogodin:
Once we can simulate the focal properties of the human eye (even digital cameras have a diffuicult time) then we can move on to this topic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, we can do it now. We know up front that it is not perfect.. nothing in a sim ever is and nothing in a sim ever will be! But we do know that most of our time in a WWII sim is spent looking beyind the cockpit at the bogie... therefore make the cockpit bars semi-trans like the would be in real life for that situaion

TAGERT

[This message was edited by tagert on Wed January 21 2004 at 11:26 AM.]

WWMaxGunz
01-21-2004, 05:49 PM
For those who say that translucent spars would soak up too much framerate, all I can say is that I ran Red Baron 3D back in 1998 on a 233mz K6-2 machine with 64M 66mz SDRAM and a freaking 4M Voodoo 1 card and was able to get decent framerates with the entire cockpit ghosted.

We don't need PERFECT simulation of stereovision. We only something more real than single point, fixed position viewing. In real you can can see around an object with one eye that you can't see through with the other. In real you move your head slightly if not or for better view. A plane at 50 feet is going to be far wider than a canopy spar anyway! Translucent spars only SIMULATE what we don't have the hardware and computing power to have directly! What use is a perfect model in a combat sim if you can't function properly?


Neal

WWMaxGunz
01-21-2004, 06:31 PM
BTW Tagert: I don't seem to see PM's anymore soooo....

Charles Gunst has the EAW layouts on IIRC the ECA website, or was it ECAPanel?

OTOH you can get C++ source for my EAW Tweaker (hit bubbles and armor) which has the layouts in the header files and code for full cabinet and other files access at my current homepage:

www.intergate.com/~nealorr (http://www.intergate.com/~nealorr)

The code is written in TurboC++ 3.0 but I stuck to ANSI for compatibilty. Only thing is there's no Make files, just Borland prj file.


Neal

tagert
01-21-2004, 09:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
For those who say that translucent spars would soak up too much framerate, all I can say is that I ran Red Baron 3D back in 1998 on a 233mz K6-2 machine with 64M 66mz SDRAM and a freaking 4M Voodoo 1 card and was able to get decent framerates with the entire cockpit ghosted.

We don't need PERFECT simulation of stereovision. We only something more real than single point, fixed position viewing. In real you can can see around an object with one eye that you can't see through with the other. In real you move your head slightly if not or for better view. A plane at 50 feet is going to be far wider than a canopy spar anyway! Translucent spars only SIMULATE what we don't have the hardware and computing power to have directly! What use is a perfect model in a combat sim if you can't function properly?


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally!

TAGERT

tagert
01-21-2004, 09:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
BTW Tagert: I don't seem to see PM's anymore soooo....

Charles Gunst has the EAW layouts on IIRC the ECA website, or was it ECAPanel?

OTOH you can get C++ source for my EAW Tweaker (hit bubbles and armor) which has the layouts in the header files and code for full cabinet and other files access at my current homepage:

http://www.intergate.com/~nealorr

The code is written in TurboC++ 3.0 but I stuck to ANSI for compatibilty. Only thing is there's no Make files, just Borland prj file.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Very Cool! Thanks! I started to hack EAW.. Was one of the first to poke around in the demo to *look* at other ac in there... I uploaded the fist pic's of the P47C to some guys web sight... But then real life kicked in and I had to give up on hacking EAW... But I did see some of the later works... Them boys did some neat work! Oh that note... you name rings a bell now... Didnt you do alot of the EAW stuff early on?

TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
01-22-2004, 06:55 AM
No, just that. I was in touch with Paulo Morais throughout the summer of 99 and got the layouts and basic utilities (very basic and direct plus source) just before 1.2 hit. When it did we discussed the gunnery and his solution was ARMBOOST. I felt that cranking the armor up wasn't really half the answer although it was a good response. So I made the Tweaker to allow hit bubble manipulation as well as armor and distibuted that. Since I was doing the job and had farther plans I used the docs to make full C++ file access objects which you can see as a set they automate so much of the work, even to the point of opening the cabinets and creating or overwriting the mod files or accessing them directly without the main code needing to do more than specify what class of access to use. Very clean. Just regard the Tweaker main() code as an example howto for using the file access objects and spend time understanding the way the set works and flows together then you'll be able to do whatever you want and maybe fill in some of the blanks in the layout headers. Have fun, it's my techniques for file access support as learned/gleaned from texts and years of practice.


Neal

flyingskid2
01-22-2004, 09:39 AM
I think fully translucent cockpit bars with translucent borders around seat backs is a good compromise. The translucency should not be applied only to vertical bars since in real life pilots move their head around and can see beyond/through/around horizontal bars as well.

This should be easy to implement by just switching between wonder woman view and cockpit view back and forth very fast, except don't switch the instrument panel portion.

Actually come to think of it, we can already do this by programming a key to send CTRL F1 continously! and taping that key down.

tagert
01-22-2004, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyingskid2:
I think fully translucent cockpit bars with translucent borders around seat backs is a good compromise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyingskid2:
The translucency should not be applied only to vertical bars since in real life pilots move their head around and can see beyond/through/around horizontal bars as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyingskid2:
This should be easy to implement by just switching between wonder woman view and cockpit view back and forth very fast, except don't switch the instrument panel portion.

Actually come to think of it, we can already do this by programming a key to send CTRL F1 continously! and taping that key down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%... The switching between would be easy... if necessary.. or just as a option you set/select.. What is not easy... So Im told is it would require all those portions of the cockpits to be re-drawn... Some overlay thing... Basically it is too late for IL2FB.. But hopfully BoB will take up thos challenge.

TAGERT

LuftKuhMist
01-22-2004, 11:48 AM
Beating a dead horse.

http://www.ckoi.com/ckoi2/images/comiques/normales/0000022.JPG

tagert
01-22-2004, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftKuhMist:
Beating a dead horse.

http://www.ckoi.com/ckoi2/images/comiques/normales/0000022.JPG <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not at all! I love that sig of yours! Keep posting it I think it is funny!!

TAGERT

nearmiss
01-29-2004, 09:50 AM
Bump

XyZspineZyX
01-29-2004, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Once a _gamer_ always a gamer I guess...


The idea is simply silly. There are already too many _arcade_ servers/settings in FB.

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

__BlitzPig_EL__<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

it's not silly at all.

Here's why.

We are forced to deal with issues the pilots of the real aircraft did not have. The canopy struts weren't an issue because they could move their heads. We can't move ours - so we need to come up with a way to achieve the same functionality - even if it is at the cost of being "graphically" incorrect.

Graphics make fine screenshots, they do however add little to gameplay function if we are ending up having to deal with issues that never existed.

http://www3.telus.net/ice51/taipans/tpn_bard.jpg (http://taipans.dyndns.org/)

nearmiss
02-02-2004, 12:06 PM
bump

KG26_Alpha
02-03-2004, 05:05 AM
You think Oleg will let this happen?????

Hmmmm I remember the FW190 rumpus with the thin bar at the bottom of the armoured screen, and you want him to let you see through all the struts.

Dream on.

rbstr44
02-03-2004, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftKuhMist:
I don't want.

Do you know that a transparent poly costs 4 times the calculation of a non transparent one?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for pointing that out. People seem to think that additional features like this request come at little or no cost. Of course, some will be willing to give up a few (tens of?) frames per second for this effect. Still, given that Oleg has repeatedly said he is not changing the cockpit views of any planes, I think it would be better to wish for this feature in BoB than in IL2/FB. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Huxley_S
02-03-2004, 07:17 AM
All you would need to get around the problem is a lean left/right button combo. This could be linked to the game engine so that leaning would be restricted depending on the G-Force... i.e. you can peer over the side of the plane when flying straight and level but are bolt upright in a loop.

The transparency thing is a good idea though.

nearmiss
02-03-2004, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
You think Oleg will let this happen?????

Hmmmm I remember the FW190 rumpus with the thin bar at the bottom of the armoured screen, and you want him to let you see through all the struts.

Dream on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not...we're getting a YP-80, a GO-229 (Bat plane) and who knows what else totally out of the time span covered by IL2-FB in the upcoming Ace add-on.

Obviously...it's to heck with realism, why shouldn't 1C:Maddox drop all their hypcritical panderings to realism...which is nothing but an excuse to give us what they want.

Transluscent cockpit frames are a nothing, and they could be switchable for users. The switch would allow all those users that embrace the big bars that obstruct all the viewing on their poke hole (15",17",19" monitor)into the simulation world to have what they want...LOL

Forget full real...this sim is going full tilt "Crimsom Skies". I just hope the trajectory on my laser guns is harmonized properly in my Bat plane for targeting the YP-80 after-all it'll have to be good because it was flown in Korea.(quite a way from the Eastern Front...LOL)

Don't take me serious...cause I ain't

-------------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

flyingskid2
02-03-2004, 12:43 PM
btw, i tried switching back & forth between cockpit and no cockpit views to simulate (sort of) translucent bars. first, it doesn't switch fast enough. 2nd, the sky lighting changes between cockpit on and off. i don't know why this should be like this, but it makes the view "flash" between slightly brighter and slightly darker.

gkll
02-04-2004, 04:17 PM
The original poster and his logic are correct IMO. If the overhead is too high on the processing side then so be it but give it to us for BOB or as a later patch,

Realism is improved not degraded - just like icons can give you the view at 2k you would really have and don't get on a teen tiny monitor....

starfighter1
02-06-2004, 03:27 AM
hi,
exactly...
a short clear and true answer.
I guess there is and was time enough to fix some main view bugs before BoB is knocking at the door.
By the way: 'Gibbage' is working hard at his baby 'spit' to get a good compromise by import into this old corrupt gaming cockpit view engine since first release of IL-2. Remember the discussion at netwings.org

I'm interest to see the results and some more in the next Addon.







<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:

nearmiss, yes Oleg has to reach some kind of comprimise between his scale fidelity fetish and real life. As it now stands with all the cockpits, none are true to life from a pilot's view point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

nearmiss
03-07-2004, 05:02 PM
I thought this topic needed a revival...because we need something "NOW" to improve IL2-FB virtual cockpit viewing.

The viewing possibilities within the IL2-FB virtual cockpits are terrible. I was just doing the usual stuff in the AEP and my little dog came in and sat down beside me, just to my right, within three feet of my chair, a little behind me...just within my peripheral vision.

Yow! It just dawned on me how bad it is trying to sit behind the virtual cockpit, barely seeing 1/3 of what's in front of the virtual plane. If I want to enhance my viewing I need a TrackIR2, and then I still have to move my head around like C3PO in Star Wars.

Dexmeister almost had it pegged with the use of three monitors, and still he was nowhere near addressing the visual capabilities provided by peripheral vision with 3 monitors.

The 1C:Maddox team is sharp enough to put something together that is significantly better than what we now have. I've mentioned the addition of providing translucent frame bars in the virtual cockpit (a quick fix).

There are better ways of doing the job. Why not a quick fix now to buy some time and provide better visuals until there is time build a very good visual tool for users?

One of the greatest abilities described by combat pilots, since the first combat even today is the ability to see and discern other aircraft at great distances in many directions.

We've got alot of great stuff, but we still can't see for poot. Something needs to be done.

------------------- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FLAGRUM_3
03-14-2004, 02:29 PM
Excellent Idea that way everyone has a choice, but I would vote for illiminating Wonder Woman view all together and replacing it with transparent cockpit struts.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by brucevonlodi:
I totally agree with RBJ and I have been asking for something like this for as long as IL2 has been released. If transparency is a frame rate problem then How about no bars? To satisfy everyone how about replacing the the "no cockpit" option with the "no cockpit bars" option? Or-- add a no cockpit bars option to the selection of view?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>