PDA

View Full Version : Feature Request: Arrow indicators with cockpit on?



NorrisMcWhirter
02-23-2004, 10:10 AM
Hi,

Not sure if this has been done to death, but would it be possible to have the arrow indicators as an option when the cockpit is on?

I suspect the main issue is where the arrows would be placed but I suspect that if they were as they are now, i.e. around the edge of the screen, it wouldn't be too bad.

This would form a nice stepping stone from Wonder Woman to Cockpit on flying, esp for those who do not have the luxury of hatswitches/8 hands/track IR.

Regards,
Norris


================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam : http://cabinessence.cream.org/

More irreverence:
http://www.tvgohome.com/

NorrisMcWhirter
02-23-2004, 10:10 AM
Hi,

Not sure if this has been done to death, but would it be possible to have the arrow indicators as an option when the cockpit is on?

I suspect the main issue is where the arrows would be placed but I suspect that if they were as they are now, i.e. around the edge of the screen, it wouldn't be too bad.

This would form a nice stepping stone from Wonder Woman to Cockpit on flying, esp for those who do not have the luxury of hatswitches/8 hands/track IR.

Regards,
Norris


================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam : http://cabinessence.cream.org/

More irreverence:
http://www.tvgohome.com/

Bearcat99
02-23-2004, 09:43 PM
I hope this never comes in the sim.....NEVER.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

FourShades
02-24-2004, 02:11 AM
Bear, what does it matter as long as it is a server setting rather than a client setting?

I wouldn't use it myself, but I wouldn't want to stop others using it if they wanted to.

Have fun!
IV/JG7_4Shades

Lt.Davis
02-24-2004, 02:31 AM
Not in FB, but CFS2.

Speed is the KEY.

Scragbat
02-24-2004, 06:15 AM
I would like this as a server side option.

With the 2 dimensional visiblity limitations of closed cockpit view this would be very nice.

Give the arrows 50% transparency too and that would be sweet http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://www.appy55.dsl.pipex.com/FB/squigsig.gif
Home of Scragbat's Forgotten Battles Virtual Movies (http://www.appy55.dsl.pipex.com)
Virtual Cinema created with IL-2

NorrisMcWhirter
02-24-2004, 06:21 AM
Hi,

What's the problem with it as an *option*, Bearcat? If you don't like it, don't enable the option and/or fly in servers that support it. To dismiss something *optional* without any qualification seems entirely unreasonable.


Bacl to the point - thanks, Scragbat (or should it be luvvie http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif); that is entirely the reason why I made the request. Relatively unobtrusive, optional arrows to improve SA with cockpit on for those who do not view aids.

Cheers,
Norris


================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam : http://cabinessence.cream.org/

More irreverence:
http://www.tvgohome.com/

XyZspineZyX
02-24-2004, 04:23 PM
A hatswitch is a "luxury" now? I thought they were pretty much standard fare on joysticks, and you pretty much have to have a joystick if you're gonna play...

&lt;---shakes head

blabla0001
02-24-2004, 04:31 PM
I had a pov hat on my Gravis Analog stick many years ago.

Back in those days I played Tie fighter in astonishing 800x600 resolution on my lighting fast top of the line Diamond Viper I 2MB video card and 15" monitor.

After that I had a Logitech Wingman digital which also had a pov hat on it as well as my Saitek Cybrog 3D gold USB I use now.

These days I have not seen a single stick out there without a pov hat.

Gato-Loco
02-24-2004, 05:06 PM
Hmmm.... I probably won't use it, but I'm for having more options.

tttiger
02-24-2004, 05:32 PM
Why don't we just go whole hog and put radar in every plane?

Geeze...

Seriously, I would like to see ground radar operators to vector planes to targets. And having ground controllers with the infantry to call in air strikes would be realistic.

But arrows???? A transition to using the cockpit???

No way.

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

XyZspineZyX
02-24-2004, 05:36 PM
But....I can't be l337 without all these crutches and aids. And I don't have time to learn the hard way.... *simper* *whine*

Oh, those "gamers" have it so hard...

Dnmy
02-24-2004, 05:55 PM
Where it concerns (cockpit) visibility FB simmers on FR games have a much harder time in FB than the pilots in real life had.

So these arrows wouldn't have to be no less of a crutch than icons are. I think these arrows could be excellent to simulate peripheral vision. Peripheral vision has always been severly lacking in sims. Only Rowan's BoB has something similar. Would be nice if peripheral vision could be modelled in Olegs next sim.

The peripheral vision cone in which you would be able to spot the arrows, should be limited to slightly less than 180 degs. So every flying object at 90 degs from your current viewing direction should be made visible by the arrow when it's out of your current field of view. Provided it's WVR ofcourse. When it's in your current field of view, the icon itself would be visible.

The range at which the arrows start to appear should then be tied to the icon (visible) range.
The arrow indicators is in fact a great idea, it's only poorly implemented right now.

clint-ruin
02-24-2004, 05:58 PM
It's a good idea.

Some people bungee jump. Other people do tricks on skateboards, or drag race. Here, we have a bunch of people on the forums who think resisting the temptation to push CTRL-F1 adds pounds to their testicles.

Best laughed at.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

S77th-brooks
02-24-2004, 10:16 PM
he must be joking

LEXX_Luthor
02-25-2004, 03:45 PM
When they are pushed against the wall, they try the Peripheral Vision tactic, a last act of Desperation. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif You don't spot distant targets with peripheral vision. In flying, peripheral vision only serves to orient you, lets you keep track of where you are looking relative to the rest of the plane. However, the importance of this can be seen by flying only in full zoomed in 30 degree mode, and you often don't know where you are looking sometimes. But to spot small targets far away, you must look almost directly at them. Peripheral vision does not have the detail sensitivity to pick up dots.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

Dnmy
02-26-2004, 12:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
When they are pushed against the wall, they try the Peripheral Vision tactic, a last act of Desperation. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif You don't spot distant targets with peripheral vision. In flying, peripheral vision only serves to orient you, lets you keep track of where you are looking relative to the rest of the plane. However, the importance of this can be seen by flying only in full zoomed in 30 degree mode, and you often don't know where you are looking sometimes. But to spot small targets far away, you must look almost directly at them. Peripheral vision does not have the detail sensitivity to pick up dots.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nobody is pushed against the wall here. Last act of desperation? You better get your facts straight first. Because you couldn't be more wrong WRT to what you mentioned about peripheral vision.

It's quite the opposite. FYI it's a fact that in real life you pick up moving objects (WVR ofcourse) much quicker in your peripheral vision than if you were to look directly at them.

No sim to date, except Rowan's battle of Brittain has modelled this. And that's a sim 5 years(?) old already.

I guess you're too blind to see a good idea when it's in front of you. You should use your "peripheral vision" more and expand your horizon, literally.

LEXX_Luthor
02-26-2004, 12:18 AM
Distant dots do not move fast.

Got another idea? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.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.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

Dnmy
02-26-2004, 12:19 AM
I mentioned moving objects WVR, can you read?

LEXX_Luthor
02-26-2004, 12:19 AM
Distant dots WVR do not move fast.

Got another one? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.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.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

Dnmy
02-26-2004, 12:24 AM
Who's talking about distant dots?

That's you dude, not me.

Open your eyes and learn to read before you come to the wrong conclusions.

LEXX_Luthor
02-26-2004, 12:29 AM
Look, you can't read with peripheral vision for the same reason you can't detect distant dots with peripheral vision, even if they are moving slow or fast. Now, a sunlit wing flash would be possible, but those are not modded over the FB.

Now, Arrows for simmers with bad vision, this could be an idea. On the other hand, we already have icons and they are more realistic than arrows.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

Dnmy
02-26-2004, 12:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dnmy:
Who's talking about distant dots?

That's you dude, not me.

Open your eyes and learn to read before you come to the wrong conclusions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ehh..exactly what part of this did you not read or fail to understand?

And about peripheral vison, moving objects are picked up quicker in your peripheral vision. It's a fact. You can read up on it, ask real life pilots. Do whatever you have to do to be convinced, but it's a fact just like 1 + 1 = 2.

LEXX_Luthor
02-26-2004, 12:45 AM
I Got it! Arrows appear only pointing at planes off the computer monitor, to 90 degrees off-center maximum. Again we can get into the fact that peripheral vision does not support this idea except to maybe 45 degrees--which we already have on our monitors in Wide View. Further, the loss in detail in peripheral vision is why pilots must look in the direction of the enemy when dogfighting.

Also, you must limit the range of aircraft subject to being Arrowed, or to detect distant aircraft all you have to do is look the other way and an Arrow will tell you a plane is 6km away. Range limit like 1/2 km is needed.

Worse, this modding of peripheral vision as I understand it would be just an onwhine Cheat. And, if I understand this correctly, its not worth Oleg's programming time, just my opinion. It is a fascinating theoretical concept however, but best left for implementation in some other flight sim.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

Dnmy
02-26-2004, 01:13 AM
You obviously haven't a clue what i'm talking about here. I'm talking about simulating peripheral vision. Your peripheral vision allows you to cover an area of somewhat less than 180 degs.

I'm not talking about your regular 1 on 1 dogfight. I'm talking about a multi bogey environment where you need all that real life peripheral vision. Heck even driving a car in normal day traffic you need it.

When you look at that screen, do you really think that that's the most realistic picture you can have? That sitting in the cockpit you really have that limited 90 deg widest FOV? That outside of that 90 degree cone you can't see anything? That to see moving objects WVR, but outside of that cone, you need to pan your view?

If so, then you need to seriously consider going to an eyedoctor.

In real life you got your peripheral vision to see outside of that "90 deg" cone. In real life you pick up moving objects in your peripheral vision. But in this sim we don't have peripheral vision. We have tunnelvision. We have arrows in no cockpit, but they could be better implemented to simulate peripheral vision.

A slight change here and there and the arrows could make an excellent simulation of peripheral vision, from within the cockpit view, complementing whatever icons we have.

If we as simmers can have peripheral vision it will make the sim more real. You're talking and thinking in terms of cheats, and that clouds your mind. I'm talking in terms of making it more true to life. Properly implemented arrows tied to the icon range is just one excellent option to simulate peripheral vision. But there might be other options as well.

And if it's made a serverside option, even the tunnelvision guys could stay happy with their narrow views.

[This message was edited by Dnmy on Thu February 26 2004 at 12:22 AM.]

LEXX_Luthor
02-26-2004, 01:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Properly implemented arrows tied to the icon range is just one excellent option to simulate peripheral vision.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okay, first you must specify what "proper" is. Then we may move beyond discussing "cheats."

For one (1) example of what you must do, define what happens to the Arrows if the other aircraft are hidden behind cockpit or wings.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

Dnmy
02-26-2004, 03:09 AM
A couple of posts back i explained already what i meant about properly implementing arrows to simulate peripheral vision.

1. The arrows should only be visible when the object WVR is OUTSIDE of your current FOV but INSIDE of your peripheral vision cone. The arrow should be visible when it's visible in your peripheral vision.

2. Every moving object WVR, but OUTSIDE of your peripheral vision cone, should NOT be displayed by an arrow. If it's out of your peripheral vision, you can't see it.

Everything above implies that if an object is obstructed by a wing a canopy bar, the nose of the aircraft or whatever, the arrow shouldn't be displayed even if it's outside your FOV but inside your peripheral vision cone.

If it's inside your current FOV the arrow shouldn't be displayed anyway, irregardless of whether the object is obstructed or not.

And since you're so hung up on cheats, do you consider your real life peripheral vision also a cheat? Do you consider the fact that you have 2 eyes to perceive depth in real life also a cheat? Do you consider the fact that in real life you can observe object at much greater detail also a cheat?

If so, then i think you need to make some distinctions between what is present in real life and what is absent in a sim. Until then it's absolutely nonsense to talk about peripheral vision as a cheat, crutch or arcade.

It's there in real life. It can be there in the sim if care is taken to implement it properly, is all i'm saying.

It's actually incredible that suggestions put forward to implement peripheral vision to make the sim more realistic, are regarded as cheats. It's the world upside down. In sims, we're rather cheated out of our peripheral vision. Peripheral vision is absent in sims.

And since it's always been so obviously absent we've come to the point that we take its absence in sims for granted. We think it's supposed to be that way. Which is nonsense ofcourse.

I can tell you right now, in real life we take the presense of our peripheral vision for granted.

Rajvosa
02-26-2004, 03:19 AM
I think it's a great idea. Once again, those who do not like it, have the option of disabling it. What seem to be the problem here? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif


Regards,

Jasko

http://www.maidenfans.com/imc/pictures/aces_pda.jpg

Dnmy
02-26-2004, 04:05 AM
The problem here is boxed lineair thinking.

People see someone mention arrow indicators and the automatic reaction is arcade, taboo, cheat.

Some people need to think out of the box for a change in order to be innovative.

LEXX_Luthor
02-26-2004, 05:46 AM
Thanks Dnmy, that is a good start in implementing a fascinating theoretical concept.

Dnmy:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The problem here is boxed lineair thinking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The problem here is that the severe loss in detail in peripheral vision does not justify the use of Arrows. The reason we call it Cheat is that this is falsely advertised as a "stepping stone" to realism beyond Cockpit Off mode. Widening the computer monitor field of view is a stepping stone to realism--we all agree here. Indeed, the Arrows may enable the flight sim developer to save programming time by restricting the field of view to less than we have now, justifying his/her actions by the use of Arrows. This is a stepping stone backwards in flight sim development that all will suffer from regardless of "settings," and represents boxed linear thinking. I suggest we argue for widened field of view. Thanks for the discussion.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

wideblade
02-26-2004, 05:47 AM
The real problem about some of these cockpit threads is that there is people who think about this il2/fb more as a kids game than as a simulator.They want mre visibility cause they want mre kills and less problems in order to get those kills,hmmm this is not doom or one of those games as ....some easy fliing...In this game the challenge is solve the sume of problems that can take yu to the ground not to get mre kills and mre nice views,its true that cockpit visuals are not 100% perfect but cockpit works as a prob yu have to work with and thats challenging for a tough game as this is,im sure that Oleg will take this sim as far as he can but im sure too he wont fall on turning it into an easy flight kill lot childs game.

wideblade
02-26-2004, 05:47 AM
-Whiteknight-

clint-ruin
02-26-2004, 06:16 AM
It amazes me that people could be such silly wankers as to care what settings other people are using at all.

I could care less about what is considered 'realistic' visibility by the whale oil set. I don't think such a thing is likely on a crappy 15" monitor in the first place.

I would tend to take the view that there is no justification for having a problem with someone enjoying both the FB cockpit art, and the increased SA the arrows provide, in the privacy of their own home on their own computer.

If you do have a problem with this, I would suggest that you bypass the typical 9 page thread on 'realism' and head straight for a therapist. That's just crazy, even for flight simmers.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

SeaFireLIV
02-26-2004, 06:36 AM
I think there`s a fear here, which I share, of a general trend that could develope if we meekly say, `No problem, fine.`

Oleg will begin to get the impression we all want arrows, icons, WWV all over the planes. Then we will have more `baby help` with more `radar`, messages telling you every little thing that`s happening, walking you through a dogfight like a Parent guiding a toddler down a street. Very similar to CFS3- I couldn`t stand the thousands of dumb messages, even telling me who the enemy pilot`s names were. I spent ages trying to find and switching off that rubbish.

Eventually, the attitude might prevail with flight sim programmers that `realistic` doesn`t mean trying to represent reality, but represent `Arcade` baby help. Perhaps then furure developers won`t even bother with the option to have a cockpit, or an option for no icons, or no HUD.

We want an experience, not an arcade `how many thousands of points can I rack up?` FB provides this closest to reality so far. There are arcade games out for that already.

BIG NO TO ARROWS. This would be a backward step.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/little_armsFB.jpg
The Fights continue out of the Servers...

NorrisMcWhirter
02-26-2004, 06:37 AM
Hi,

I'm always amazed by the 'cockpit on' fraternity demanding that everyone use their preferred settings all of the time.

The fact remains that people do not always use cockpit on and it is commercially sensible to offer options as this sim has a significant learning curve compared to other products in the market. To re-iterate the point, I speculated in another thread that I wondered how many people had returned the game because it was too difficult to begin with. If 1C/UBI have people never buying the game because it is too difficult,and I know people who have tried Il-2 to say :

"It's too hard..."
"Couldn't get off the ground"
"I don't have enough time to learn..."
"I disabled the spins and I didn't crash all the time - I really like it now..."

...then then are unlikely to make enough money to go on to develop newer and better sims. Would you prefer to have a super hard sim then UBI drop it cos they only sold 3 copies? Or, would you rather that people have a progressive learning experience following them retaining the game?

Furthermore, I always fly with the realism (spins, CEM etc) ON, and sometimes I fly cockpit off....Does that mean that I should demand that those options are removed from the first page setup screen because flying would be 'unrealistic' if they were disabled? Rubbish - I don't use the options but I don't want to have them removed.

Anyway, I'm flogging a dead horse there because arguments such as that make no inroads into certain people's thinking.

Back to the point in hand, though...

DNMY: I like the refinement of the idea with respect to the arrows only showing in the peripheral field of vision. I was thinking that this would be more difficult to implement, though, because the peripheral vision would need to be modified with respect to where the player was actually looking at the time and, to be modelled correctly, the arrows would need to be turned off should an obstacle come into the cone of vision (such as armour plating behind the pilot).

Just adding the arrows to the cockpit on screen, like in WW view, would, I imagine, be the easiest change to the code for the 1C team. The peripheral cone vision scheme may well be a nice feature to have in the new BoB sim (?)

Regards,
Norris


================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam : http://cabinessence.cream.org/

More irreverence:
http://www.tvgohome.com/

LEXX_Luthor
02-26-2004, 06:41 AM
clint~ruin:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>care what settings other people are using<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>clint you are right, but you will find that nobody here cares what simmers do behind closed doors. They care about what the Developers spend time doing, and they should be working toward realistic views that are also easy to use with our hardware. It can be done.

The best example is user adjusted dot sizes, and adjusting the algorithm of their grey fade~out. Indeed, unlimited control of dot size will help those with poor vision, even making the dot sizes whole circles 10+ pixels in diameter (indeed, such "dot" sizes may someday be required by simmers with perfect vision using ultra high monitor resolutions far beyond 1600x1200). This is very easy to program, the developers often never *think* of very basic ideas that prove infinitely valuable to the simmer/simmerette.

Widened cockpit view is a must, combined with snap Instrument View with Return, and is the only way to simulate peripheral vision. The Developers may find Arrows easier to do instead, and this would be a shame. I think a good 120 degree field of view would be Awsum.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

SeaFireLIV
02-26-2004, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

Just adding the arrows to the cockpit on screen, like in WW view, would, I imagine, be the easiest change to the code for the 1C team. The peripheral cone vision scheme may well be a nice feature to have in the new BoB sim (?)

Regards,
Norris

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They had the CONE in CFS3. Nearly made me vomit. Took me ages to find and switch it off. Fine, have it as an option, but if it`s ever there permanently BOB would enter the bin.

I like Lexx`s suggestions there... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/little_armsFB.jpg
The Fights continue out of the Servers...

wideblade
02-26-2004, 06:46 AM
Personally i dont care what settings other people are using but i care this game i like turns into one of those easy fliers

CTRTEMPEST
02-26-2004, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dnmy:
A couple of posts back i explained already what i meant about properly implementing arrows to simulate peripheral vision.

1. The arrows should only be visible when the object WVR is OUTSIDE of your current FOV but INSIDE of your peripheral vision cone. The arrow should be visible when it's visible in your peripheral vision.

2. Every moving object WVR, but OUTSIDE of your peripheral vision cone, should NOT be displayed by an arrow. If it's out of your peripheral vision, you can't see it.

Everything above implies that if an object is obstructed by a wing a canopy bar, the nose of the aircraft or whatever, the arrow shouldn't be displayed even if it's outside your FOV but inside your peripheral vision cone.

If it's inside your current FOV the arrow shouldn't be displayed anyway, irregardless of whether the object is obstructed or not.

And since you're so hung up on cheats, do you consider your real life peripheral vision also a cheat? Do you consider the fact that you have 2 eyes to perceive depth in real life also a cheat? Do you consider the fact that in real life you can observe object at much greater detail also a cheat?

If so, then i think you need to make some distinctions between what is present in real life and what is absent in a sim. Until then it's absolutely nonsense to talk about peripheral vision as a cheat, crutch or arcade.

It's there in real life. It can be there in the sim if care is taken to implement it properly, is all i'm saying.

It's actually incredible that suggestions put forward to implement peripheral vision to make the sim more realistic, are regarded as cheats. It's the world upside down. In sims, we're rather cheated out of our peripheral vision. Peripheral vision is absent in sims.

And since it's always been so obviously absent we've come to the point that we take its absence in sims for granted. We think it's supposed to be that way. Which is nonsense ofcourse.

I can tell you right now, in real life we take the presense of our peripheral vision for granted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

GREAT IDEA!

wideblade
02-26-2004, 07:57 AM
To be honest im starting to think that jealous cfs3 people try to destroy the IL2 sim concept,the reason to exist of il2/fb is about its complexity and step learning curve if this goes down any other game will overcome ol2/fb.

-whiteknight-

SeaFireLIV
02-26-2004, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wideblade:
To be honest im starting to think that jealous cfs3 people try to destroy the IL2 sim concept,the reason to exist of il2/fb is about its complexity and step learning curve if this goes down any other game will overcome ol2/fb.

-whiteknight-<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, we`re now probably being paranoid, but I had the same thought myself.... Ruin FB, just make it babified like CFS3! Problem with CFS3 is microsoft tried to please EVERYONE, that`s why you can`t see anything else except arrowa, cones, pilot aircraft data, names, range. The beauty of sim- flying- LOST.

Look at EAW, did it need all that flannell? No. and it`s a classic.

I don`t mind basic help we have now for FB, but this `arrows in cockpit` etc, just how far will it go. Learn to stand and walk.

clint-ruin
02-26-2004, 08:35 AM
I still think people are being crazy to see it as a slippery slope.

Stumbling block: people seeing this as "adding WWV to full real" rather than "adding a cockpit to WWV". Noone is proposing making "full real" full of pointy blue and red arrows. They are proposing adding a view that is halfway between wonder woman view, and the arrow-less in-cockpit view. Behold, your copy of FB would still provide you with the perfect environment to flex your leather flight jacket, replica spitfire control column, and all of the other things you have around the house that make your wife and/or mother laugh at you.

Amazingly - I don't know how this could possibly have happened, given that some people regard this slippery slope as some kind of black hole ..

But if you go and look at Il-2 1.0's difficulty options, you will see options that allow you to turn vulnerability off, all weather/aerodynamic effects, make your guns 3x as powerful, and so on and so forth.

If you go and load FB 1.22's difficulty options panel .. what do you see there? Somehow Oleg has managed to emerge from the event horizon of 'adding newbie options' unscathed. A miracle?

Being non-religious, I would tend to call it 'common sense'.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

wideblade
02-26-2004, 09:52 AM
Its reasonable that guys who enjoy to play the full reallistic settings wonder about the game loses part of its complexity,personally i should enjoy any more;i know the arrows option wont take this down but as other people have posted here "there are out there other sims that offers the easy way".
Just an opinion.

-Whiteknight-

NorrisMcWhirter
02-26-2004, 10:14 AM
Hi,

I'm not sure how many times it has to be said but the request is for an option. That's why it mentioned, in my original post, it being an optional feature.

The option does not have to be on as default, so it isn't "annoying out of the box" and even saves one mouse click in turning it off for those who feel utterly offended.

In actual fact, I wasn't even advocating a peripheral vision cone because, as it said in my last post, that would involve significant work both for 1C and your PC hardware when running the game. This, of course, would have less impact for BoB because most people would have newer hardware..if they optionally chose to
upgrade http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My original intention was to have the arrows, as present on the WW view, to be optionally displayed on the cockpit view...as an option.
It's not even something that I would particularly use myself; it's just that I had a conversation in a server, one day, about this and there seemed to be an overall liking for the idea.

I agree that people will be afraid of FB turning into CFS3 and that is legitimate because we really don't want a stutter-free CFS3 coming out of 1C. FYI, I hated CFS3 as much as the next man because of it's simplicity. However, that argument doesn't
really apply here because, with all realism options enabled, it wasn't as 'realistic' or 'difficult' as FB - they pitched the whole thing too low in the first place.

Also, what's wrong with people enjoying this sim, over those that offer the easy way, when there is a progression path available in FB? Are you really suggesting that:

a. They should fly &lt;insert pansy flight sim of your choice/CFS3&gt; ...
b. They should get bored of it as it is too easy, even on hard settings.
c. When they are 'tough enough', they should purchase FB?

Why not just buy FB in the first place and tailor it to your skill requirements? 1C/UBI make more cash overall and you may get an even larger development spend on the next sim...?

I'm beginning to enjoy rephrasing the same argument over and over again - did you notice?

Regards,
Norris

PS : Did I mention that it could be optional and, thus, would not encroach on
any ivory tower views (another view type?) of the world?


================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam : http://cabinessence.cream.org/

More irreverence:
http://www.tvgohome.com/

wideblade
02-26-2004, 12:36 PM
I started myself to play FB with the easy settings on and made the progression path yu talking about,im not a real pilot, by my side nothing wrong with the easy settings at all;nothing wrong with yur arrows,but....as yu say a bunch of people afraid of FB turning into a kind of CFS3 game and its positive to let know this at easy settings threads cause if not the conclusion could be people doesnt want a high settings into the game but an easier game.

-Whiteknight-

flyingskid2
02-26-2004, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dnmy:
Where it concerns (cockpit) visibility FB simmers on FR games have a much harder time in FB than the pilots in real life had.

So these arrows wouldn't have to be no less of a crutch than icons are. I think these arrows could be excellent to simulate peripheral vision. Peripheral vision has always been severly lacking in sims. Only Rowan's BoB has something similar. Would be nice if peripheral vision could be modelled in Olegs next sim.

The peripheral vision cone in which you would be able to spot the arrows, should be limited to slightly less than 180 degs. So every flying object at 90 degs from your current viewing direction should be made visible by the arrow when it's out of your current field of view. Provided it's WVR ofcourse. When it's in your current field of view, the icon itself would be visible.

The range at which the arrows start to appear should then be tied to the icon (visible) range.
The arrow indicators is in fact a great idea, it's only poorly implemented right now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree.
Also If we're gonna have arrows, it doesn't make sense to have NO icons. What, you have a visual aid for something you cannot see, but don't have a visual aid for something you can actually see? makes no sense. In cockpit-off no-icons servers, it's ridiculous how the arrows of the planes outside your field of view are WAY more prominent than the dots of the planes IN your field of view.

Cossack13
02-26-2004, 03:21 PM
Yeah, some folks are really going to hate this and they are going to tell you all about it.

But from the gaming side, it would make good sense because it will allow more gamers who want a lower intensity game to get what they want.

Plus, it would be a good thing for the community as a whole since it would help increase the pool of prospective pilots (gamers) to fly against.

Most people who are new to flight sims will find the cockpit off mode generally easier to learn on. Once you learn how to fly the plane, shoot at targets, etc., then the cockpit on with arrows would provide an easier step towards eventually going the Max Difficulty (or Full Real, if you prefer) route.

Stop and think about it, guys. Adding an option such as this means more gamers heading toward the cockpit-on arena. That's a good thing.

Hey, worst case would mean there'd be a few more servers out there that some of you would never play...but where's the harm in that?

http://www.tolwyn.com/~cossack/White13.gif
What ever you do, do
NOT buy an Alienware!

Dnmy
02-26-2004, 05:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The problem here is that the severe loss in detail in peripheral vision does not justify the use of Arrows. The reason we call it Cheat is that this is _falsely_ advertised as a "stepping stone" to realism beyond Cockpit Off mode. Widening the computer monitor field of view is a stepping stone to realism--we all agree here. Indeed, the Arrows may enable the flight sim developer to save programming time by restricting the field of view to __less__ than we have now, justifying his/her actions by the use of Arrows. This is a stepping stone backwards in flight sim development that all will suffer from regardless of "settings," and represents boxed linear thinking. I suggest we argue for widened field of view. Thanks for the discussion.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't agree with that first line. Peripheral vision is almost by definition a view that lacks detail. But the goal of the arrow is not to give details about the objects in the periphery. The arrows are only there to indicate the PRESENCE of objects in your peripheral vision and their general direction. The arrows could just as well be replaced with the peripheral vision markers like they are used in Rowan's Mig Alley for example. Visible at the edges screen, but never dominantly visible. Exactly like you'd see something in your peripheral vision.

But sure, widening the field of view is certainly another option to simulate something like peripheral vision. FWIW, if possible i'd choose both peripheral vision indicators AND wider field of views.

Dnmy
02-26-2004, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I think there`s a fear here, which I share, of a general trend that could develope if we meekly say, `No problem, fine.`

Oleg will begin to get the impression we all want arrows, icons, WWV all over the planes. Then we will have more `baby help` with more `radar`, messages telling you every little thing that`s happening, walking you through a dogfight like a Parent guiding a toddler down a street. Very similar to CFS3- I couldn`t stand the thousands of dumb messages, even telling me who the enemy pilot`s names were. I spent ages trying to find and switching off that rubbish.

Eventually, the attitude might prevail with flight sim programmers that `realistic` doesn`t mean trying to represent reality, but represent `Arcade` baby help. Perhaps then furure developers won`t even bother with the option to have a cockpit, or an option for no icons, or no HUD.

We want an experience, not an arcade `how many thousands of points can I rack up?` FB provides this closest to reality so far. There are arcade games out for that already.

BIG NO TO ARROWS. This would be a backward step.

SeaFireLIV...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but this is complete paranoia BS. A kneejerk reaction towards a certain setting that is arcade in FB but could be a very good simulation of a realistic feature IF properly implemented.

A big NO to rigid boxed thinking. Rigid boxed thinking and paranoia stands in the way of innovation and as such is always a step back into the past.

LEXX_Luthor
02-26-2004, 06:19 PM
If anybody has noticed, the Arrow Movement does not want Oleg to work on improving the Cockpit View, but only to make Arrows. You can smell something stinky when they accuse other simmers of...

Dnmy:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Rigid boxed thinking and paranoia stands in the way of innovation and as such is always a step back into the past.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Arrows are the step into the past.

For some reason, they don't want improved Cockpit View. I wonder why.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

SeaFireLIV
02-26-2004, 06:35 PM
Dnmy, Microsoft`s CFS3 does all these things to help you, and more. Why not fly that, if my thinking is so backwards/rigid to you?

Oh, wait a minute - CFS3`s crap, that`s why!

WWMaxGunz
02-26-2004, 07:22 PM
Everyone who has a virtual ****** knows that real pilots all flew with blinders on and peripheral vision has no detail whatsoever. Why, the whole idea is so wuss!

I read from nightfighters who wrote that the technique of spotting planes against the night sky was to keep moving your eyeballs, flicking around while not paying attention to the center of your field of view and you'd find the other plane with your peripheral vision. Peripheral vision is more sensitive not only to movement but also to close shades. It is more rods than cones sensors, rods detect black and white and are better at shade tones. Peripheral vision is wired for movement but if you sweep your eyeballs around then anything stationary moves in your field of view. So much for slow distant objects. That's not just nightfighters but also pilots' vision when you are up and trying to find that other plane the ATC says is in your area. Center of view is better focus, it is also slow and gets fixated, like some peoples' minds here.

Arrows? Only one or many? How about small edge of screen dots instead? Very small and unintrusive.

As for me, I'd like an arrow that points downwards as in where my G's are pushing my gut and butt. The more G's, the bigger the arrow in length and width or the stronger the color or something. We have no G's sense and sometimes panning or padlocked it's too easy to get 'lost' where IRL I can feel where my neck and head are pointed. Or.... would that be cheating or wussie, or just too ***gy arcade? Should I go fly a sim where people make their own UFO's as punishment and leave FB to the real macho men?

And by macho men, I'm thinking the Village People song cause there's some people with too much to prove and can't seem to face some real life inadequacies so have to make up for it by being hardasses in a sim where they can't get hurt! Why don't you bad boys go out and fight for real if you're so bad? Get it out of your systems FOR REAL instead of hiding behind a keyboard and net connect!

What I'm surprised at is that none of you hardguys have campaigned to have the RR options stripped from FB. Torque off? Get it out! It ruins the sim! Easy gunnery! SACRILEGE! BURRRN EM! Unlimited Ammo? Not Real! Get those options out now! OLEG! OLEG! We want everything to be Full Real Only! We demand it! We're not going to allow our sim to be watered down! Mommmmmmmmiiiiieeee! Make it stooooop!


Neal

LEXX_Luthor
02-26-2004, 07:40 PM
WWMaxGunz, all we are asking for in this thread is for improved Cockpit View to simulate peripheral vision, maybe to 120 degrees view diameter, so we don't need Microsoft Arrows. I wish you were interested in simulating peripheral vision. Wait for AI to not see in the dark, then we may discuss peripheral vision at night. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The Gee "meter" is an excellent idea, off topic, but a wonderful idea. Thanks.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

Dnmy
02-27-2004, 02:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
If anybody has noticed, the Arrow Movement __does not__ want Oleg to work on improving the Cockpit View, but only to make Arrows. You can smell something stinky when they accuse other simmers of...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again you read things that are not there.

We all want Oleg to improve view from the cockpit. Cockpitview improvement is basically what this thread is all about. The cockpits may be authentic, but the view from the cockpit is FAR from authentic/realistic. That's why so many guys play with cockpit off. So ofcourse we all want the view from the cockpit to be improved.

One thing to make the cockpit view more authentic is to simulate peripheral vision.

And arrows or any other means of indicating objects in your peripheral vision are simply means to help to simulate that.

I already mentioned before that the markers don't nescessarily have to be displayed as arrows as per the example of Mig Alley. It's just they're displayed as arrows in IL2/FB and somewhat poorly implemented. Properly implemented, peripheral vision markers would be excellent to improve the view from the cockpit.

Dnmy
02-27-2004, 02:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Dnmy, Microsoft`s CFS3 does all these things to help you, and more. Why not fly that, if my thinking is so backwards/rigid to you?

Oh, wait a minute - CFS3`s crap, that`s why!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have CFS3, burnt myself already on its predecessors, and maybe it's crap also. But that doesn't mean that ALL features in that game are crap. It's all about HOW you implement the features that at first sight look crap to you.
Properly implemented certain features can provide for an excellent simulation.

That's what i mean with looking "outside of the box". Being able to see something that at first sight looks crap but on second thought could be quite good, if properly implemented.

Dnmy
02-27-2004, 02:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Arrows? Only one or many? How about small edge of screen dots instead? Very small and unintrusive.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could be arrows, could be peripheral vision markers like in Mig Alley. Plenty of possibilities to make the markers very subtle in size and shape. Visible, but not dominantly visible. They don't nescessarily have to be arrows. In FB it just happens to be, that they're displayed as arrows.

How many? That depends ofcourse on how many objects WVR would be in your peripheral vision cone.

BTW your description of the technique used by real life pilots to pick up objects with their peripheral vision is exactly what Shaw describes in his fighter tactics book.

LEXX_Luthor
02-27-2004, 02:59 AM
You know, MaxGunz' idea of dots or collection of dots on the border is interesting (I forgot to post about that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif apologies). Instead of Arrows. Still, expanding field of view is the better solution, and then we can dump any edge-of-vision markers. Now, the instrument panel will be smaller, but in the future we will (presumably) have gradually growing monitors and much higher resolutions.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

Dnmy
02-27-2004, 04:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

I'm not sure how many times it has to be said but the request is for an option. That's why it mentioned, in my original post, it being an optional feature.

The option does not have to be on as default, so it isn't "annoying out of the box" and even saves one mouse click in turning it off for those who feel utterly offended.

In actual fact, I wasn't even advocating a peripheral vision cone because, as it said in my last post, that would involve significant work both for 1C and your PC hardware when running the game. This, of course, would have less impact for BoB because most people would have newer hardware..if they optionally chose to
upgrade http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My original intention was to have the arrows, as present on the WW view, to be optionally displayed on the cockpit view...as an option.
It's not even something that I would particularly use myself; it's just that I had a conversation in a server, one day, about this and there seemed to be an overall liking for the idea.

I agree that people will be afraid of FB turning into CFS3 and that is legitimate because we really don't want a stutter-free CFS3 coming out of 1C. FYI, I hated CFS3 as much as the next man because of it's simplicity. However, that argument doesn't
really apply here because, with all realism options enabled, it wasn't as 'realistic' or 'difficult' as FB - they pitched the whole thing too low in the first place.

Also, what's wrong with people enjoying this sim, over those that offer the easy way, when there is a progression path available in FB? Are you really suggesting that:

a. They should fly &lt;insert pansy flight sim of your choice/CFS3&gt; ...
b. They should get bored of it as it is too easy, even on hard settings.
c. When they are 'tough enough', they should purchase FB?

Why not just buy FB in the first place and tailor it to your skill requirements? 1C/UBI make more cash overall and you may get an even larger development spend on the next sim...?

I'm beginning to enjoy rephrasing the same argument over and over again - did you notice?

Regards,
Norris

PS : Did I mention that it could be optional and, thus, would not encroach on
any ivory tower views (another view type?) of the world?


================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam : http://cabinessence.cream.org/

More irreverence:
http://www.tvgohome.com/

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed 100%.

Sorry for hijacking your thread into a peripheral vision debate.

Nevertheless i'll maintain that arrows or markers could actually simulate peripheral vision very well.

And there should be no problem at all if it's made an option.

wideblade
02-27-2004, 04:48 AM
Have yu ever thought yure playing this simulation on a 2 dimensional screen??not on a 3 dimensional enviroment?? hmm talking about peripheral vision while being related to a 2 dimendional screen makes no much sense.Yu should remember that while making a model there are limitations,think about an artist,he perfectly knows that there are somethings that cant be sketched when he makes a drawing.This peripheral vision should make sense if yu played this game with 3 screens or something like that.

wideblade
02-27-2004, 04:52 AM
When someone talks about full realistic options talks about an experience not about an exact real depict.

[This message was edited by wideblade on Fri February 27 2004 at 04:05 AM.]

Dnmy
02-27-2004, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
DNMY: I like the refinement of the idea with respect to the arrows only showing in the peripheral field of vision. I was thinking that this would be more difficult to implement, though, because the peripheral vision would need to be modified with respect to where the player was actually looking at the time and, to be modelled correctly, the arrows would need to be turned off should an obstacle come into the cone of vision (such as armour plating behind the pilot).

Just adding the arrows to the cockpit on screen, like in WW view, would, I imagine, be the easiest change to the code for the 1C team. The peripheral cone vision scheme may well be a nice feature to have in the new BoB sim (?)

Regards,
Norris


================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam : http://cabinessence.cream.org/

More irreverence:
http://www.tvgohome.com/

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have a good point. Maybe it would be difficult to implement the peripheral vision arrows in the way i described it.

However if it's not suggested or tried, for sure it'll have a slim chance of being implemented at all.

Personally it'd be ok with me if the arrows could appear in their current state in cockpit on view, if the suggestions i made would not be feasible. But it's difficult for us to judge whether something is feasible or not.

Dnmy
02-27-2004, 05:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wideblade:
Have yu ever thought yure playing this simulation on a 2 dimensional screen??not on a 3 dimensional enviroment?? hmm talking about peripheral vision while being related to a 2 dimendional screen makes no much sense.Yu should remember that while making a model there are limitations,think about an artist,he perfectly knows that there are somethings that cant be sketched when he makes a drawing.This peripheral vision should make sense if yu played this game with 3 screens or something like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL

What are you saying? we can't simulate anything so we should just keep everything as it is?
That's the biggest cop out if i ever saw one.

Point is that it IS possible to simulate stuff on your 2D screens. We just gotta be open to the possibilities.

WWMaxGunz
02-27-2004, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wideblade:
Have yu ever thought yure playing this simulation on a 2 dimensional screen??not on a 3 dimensional enviroment?? hmm talking about peripheral vision while being related to a 2 dimendional screen makes no much sense.Yu should remember that while making a model there are limitations,think about an artist,he perfectly knows that there are somethings that cant be sketched when he makes a drawing.This peripheral vision should make sense if yu played this game with 3 screens or something like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why the work-arounds which any SIMULATION has when you really think about it. There needs to be bridges between what can be shown and experienced directly and what can't. There is true are in interfacing that brings users closer to real function than a direct mapping to the limits of the hardware alone can do. It's what makes some sims stand above and stay in wide use even after many aspects become dated, witness EAW and RB3D for just two. There's compromises that fit better than none at all because they give more than lose -- and those are very hard and close steps to call.

The 2D screen and other hardware limits are only better reasons to have user aids that bridge some of the gap between what you get and what is real. But the decision of how far to go and when to stop, that is the true art and like pudding the test for lumps is in the eating.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
02-27-2004, 05:43 AM
Sorry for this post. Hit a wrong button and the board says I can't delete.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wideblade:
Have yu ever thought yure playing this simulation on a 2 dimensional screen??not on a 3 dimensional enviroment?? hmm talking about peripheral vision while being related to a 2 dimendional screen makes no much sense.Yu should remember that while making a model there are limitations,think about an artist,he perfectly knows that there are somethings that cant be sketched when he makes a drawing.This peripheral vision should make sense if yu played this game with 3 screens or something like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

wideblade
02-27-2004, 06:47 AM
Dnmy i dont try to say new things cant be aplied to the game,just triing to say thats not so esy to implement succesfully that peripherall vision,as Max say,we should eat the lump to taste it.
I agree with yu Max,how far to go and where to stop is part of the art.
Dnmy i have nothing against any new feature just posting my opinions.I should like to know what Oleg thinks about the peripherall vision applied to his game.

flyingskid2
02-27-2004, 08:56 AM
Increasing the field of view is not a good solution, because while it improves simulation of peripheral vision it degrades non-peripheral view and introduces distortion. You can see this in extreme if you set the field of view high enough that you're whole view looks like a goldfish bowl.

SeaFireLIV
02-27-2004, 10:44 AM
I`ve said all that I can. It`s one of those `Agree to disagree` things.

Signing off on this ceaseless subject.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/P47duck.jpg

Bearcat99
02-27-2004, 02:10 PM
Can you imagine being in a cockpit with those arrows floating around?? Uggghh... to each his own... not to mention the frame hit. But yeah... I guess if someone wants it...you wont see me using it though... and Im no FR chest thumper mind you...IMO those arrows are just.....UGGGHH!! I like the fact that you can get icons in cockpit without the arrows for those who are optically challenged but ... I hate the arrows in NO pit mode.....

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

Dnmy
02-27-2004, 03:39 PM
I certainly can imagine those peripheral vision markers floating around the cockpit. It's because i actually played sims with those things PROPERLY implemented. Like the Rowan sims. Can you say the same?

Because i played those sims i am quite convinced that peripheral vision can be modeled.

And i can definitely say that i'd like those arrows with the cockpit view a lot better than the no cockpit view. No doubts about that.

And optically challenged is quite the wrong word here to make distinctions between different groups of simmers. FWIW my background is with FR online sims without the training wheels like padlock, externals, no cockpit etc. As such i'm fully adept at playing at the highest difficulty levels in FB. Yet at the same time i also realize that the highest difficulty levels don't nescessarily represent the highest realism levels.

See, in this sim we're ALL optically challenged compared to real life. That is the limitation of this sim as visually stunning as it may be.
That's why we need smart workarounds to simulate a view more true to life (i.e. with peripheral vision). Peripheral vision markers (arrows) among other things can help to simulate that.

LEXX_Luthor
02-27-2004, 03:45 PM
FishBowl:: We see fishbowl effect every day in our lives with our own eyes, but we are desensitized to the effect, indeed, because the distortion is on the peripheral vision we pay little attention to.

To model instrument-sensor generated sky in my spacecraft combat sim I am writing I use 180 degree field of view and the distortion is not at all great (maximum distortion pi/2 = 1.57) and is certainly NOT disorienting. And this is total realism and does not just "simulate" peripheral vision, but includes it by definition. 120 degree wide view in a flight sim you will see very little fishbowl effect and if you do you will get used to it like you started doing the day you were born.

Now, when you go beyond 180 degrees then you get bizzaro distortions that are not natural for the humanoid eye. Indeed at 360 degree view, you get infinite distortion unless...for 360 degree view I model the entire 4pi steradians of sky with two (2) 180 degree wide hemispheres.

Indeed, the "fishbowl" effect can be seen as peripheral vision itself.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

Dnmy
02-27-2004, 03:57 PM
Widening the field of view to some 180 degs would be equally good to simulate peripheral vision. However 120 degs would be somewhat less than 60 degs too small to be able to simulate peripheral vision adequately.

That's why an option to enable peripheral vision markers would be good because it would be independant of the size of the field of view chosen.

Both a bigger field of view and peripheral vision simulated would create a more true to life viewing experience from within the cockpit.
Better spatial awareness, better situational awareness, better sense of flight, better sense of speed. No more tunnel vision.

LEXX_Luthor
02-27-2004, 04:27 PM
A point of Agreement! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.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.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

NorrisMcWhirter
02-28-2004, 03:52 AM
Hi,

Firstly,

"Can you imagine being in a cockpit with those arrows floating around?? Uggghh... to each his own... "

That is why it is optional - you don't have to enable it so you would never see it. It really is that simple. And, if you wanted to remind yourself how much you wouldn't like it, you could even enable it for a few minutes. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Back to the point:

I suppose the bottom line to all this is that the sim can never be truly representative unless you have a scheme for looking around the cockpit without using your hands (i.e. track ir/vr helmet with stereo vision) - not because it isn't something that you couldn't get used to, because people do fly using the joystick and the mouse to look around, but because a real pilot would not have been burdened with it. So, as is being said, it cannot be realistic so you have to find a way of minimising the impact.

I suppose you have to look at what the main issues are (in some order) if you do not have the facility to look around easily:

a. You need to look out of the cockpit to maintain your forward view.
b. You need to have peripheral vision to alert you to potential dangers.
c. You need to, less frequently, monitor your instruments.

c, for the most part, becomes mute in combat because you rely upon your other senses to determine the a/c's attitude/altitude/speed/engine speed

For the others, the fishbowl vision scheme (offering n degrees of vision not just in the horizontal plane), to a first approximation, sounds horrendous but would cover the issues well and maybe it is something that could be gotten used to and it would be interesting to see what the implementation looked like. Do any other sims have such an option?

However, this feature request relates to FB and I would imagine that it would be difficult for 1C to modify the code to provide such an item at this time which is why I request the simple arrows only. Not knowing the code, I have to simplisticly imagine that would involve calling the same routines that display the arrows on WW view for the cockpit view.

Someone commented that this was some kind of ploy to make the game more CFS like and that we should be asking for cockpit on improvements. Of course we should - I play with the cockpit on, too. Maybe you should make the feature requests in an alternative thread because I would be interested to see what you had in mind.

Regards,
Norris


================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam : http://cabinessence.cream.org/

More irreverence:
http://www.tvgohome.com/

flyingskid2
02-28-2004, 06:31 AM
a wide field of view means smaller objects in the view. i guess this is ok if you can always zoom in.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
FishBowl:: We see fishbowl effect every day in our lives with our own eyes, but we are desensitized to the effect, indeed, because the distortion is on the peripheral vision we pay little attention to.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

exactly why fishbowl effect is noticeable on your monitor. because you are NOT using peripheral vision when looking at the monitor. now if your monitor is as big as your wall such that the edges of the monitor coincides with the edges of your real-life vision's field of view (or if you position your face 2 inches from your monitor), then you might not notice the distortion also.

WWMaxGunz
02-28-2004, 07:54 AM
My 360 degrees has 2 pi radians. Where you from LEX?

Don't need arrows, just small dots all one color. Airwarrior had em as an option though they were in a border that I didn't really like (too wide at the least) and different colors for IFF which we don't need. In a loaded environment there's too many to easily count and a dot will not tell you how far to the side, how far away or anything about how fast it's moving in any direction so it's definitely not some form of radar. In fact, it's a bit less info than your own eyes would give you but not a whole let less whereas now we get nothing.

Bearcat... I like the pretty cockpits, or at least the instruments and everything below the edges. Above, it's like Hambone glasses and even worse than a scuba mask. I don't want floating arrows either though, imagine a furball with 20+ of those!

One reason I did like the radar padlock on earlier sims was because it enabled me to do a decent SA in a manner quite like the automatic head movement from picking things up in your peripheral view and glancing quickly to see them without a lot of searching around. When the edges of your vision catch something you don't turn your head and then search the entire FOV like snap views, your eyes and nervous system already have the action located. This is a survival skill we've all got, it's built in and we wouldn't be here without it. Even if you're a couch and desk vegetable, your parents and beyond had to have it to stay alive not to mention soldiers, pilots and hunters... anyone not safely wrapped away really. So I was happy to put up with the radar spider sense because it filled a huge gap in realism that was missing.
The PL in EAW was not all seeing or BVR like the one in RB so I liked it better. Times were when I'd get surprised by an enemy from behind or just one that floated up right next to me while coming in on another target. It came through a blind area. And yet to the front and under me, the PL would track a spotted target but at least it'd never pick one up except in a visible area. A compromise I lived with for the sake of not losing something much bigger. In a real plane I'd be craning my head around to see over the edges of the pit anyway so the extra view was not all that big. In MA, I liked the PL even more. Those sims ran on much less PC by far than mine now, RB I ran on a 233, so there was less to spare for checking visible arcs. There was also being on an equal footing with the AI's as well as other players that I very much appreciated.

I can't see demanding an option not to be included because you don't use it -- that goes for anyone -- as long as it's not something you have to use too or lose. If the latter is the case then you really need to reevaluate the situation anyway in terms of total realism gained as well as lost and not just in your own pet terms with your button pushing "skills" and pecialized hardware discounted as some kind of realism when they damned well aren't. Some people are comfortable in their well padded holes while others want to move forward. You have to take chances to make progress.


Neal

wideblade
02-28-2004, 08:20 AM
Sadly yu dont understand the problem,yure not talking about progress,just regression.Perhaps its difficut for yu to understand it but please make a try---YOU ARE PLAYING IN A 2 DIMENSIONAL SCREEEN!!!!!---- if could be possible to play this at an IMAX cinema screen yur peripherall should make sense.

2dimensional has its own laws,the game itself has its own balance that makes what it is,a piece of art at the gaming world,if yu break its balance it can reach to be a cfs3 or one of those failed attemps.
Some people seems not understand what a simulation is about,oh Jesus is it so difficult???

Dnmy
02-28-2004, 03:58 PM
Nonsense.

We're talking about improvements, progress and innovation on 2D screens. Because we're still dealing with 2D screens.

We have been dealing with 2D screens for quite some time and it's not like our 2D screens are going to be obsolete in a year from now.
We're thinking in terms of what's feasible with current hardware. And it seems to me a lot would be feasible.

You don't understand what a simulation is about. It's not just about looking at pretty pictures. That's far too limited for a simulation.

clint-ruin
02-28-2004, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wideblade:
Some people seems not understand what a simulation is about,oh Jesus is it so difficult???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Holy crap.

Have you really been going for 4 pages now .. without the slightest idea of what you're talking about?

Let's recap:

Unless you have a Matrox Parhelia, you're playing FB on a single monitor with a maximum FOV of 85 degrees.

You are missing 95 degrees of vision when you play FB on a single monitor, and, largely as a result of this, peripheral vision is not simulated in any way.

The suggestion is to simulate the unavailable peripheral vision through visual markers.

Still don't get it? Oh well. You seem to attach a great deal of importance to the word 'simulation' without having any idea what it means. Here you go: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=simulation

Maybe we should all just go and buy one of these instead? http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/elumens1.htm

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Pzyber
02-28-2004, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

Not sure if this has been done to death, but would it be possible to have the arrow indicators as an option when the cockpit is on?

I suspect the main issue is where the arrows would be placed but I suspect that if they were as they are now, i.e. around the edge of the screen, it wouldn't be too bad.

This would form a nice stepping stone from Wonder Woman to Cockpit on flying, esp for those who do not have the luxury of hatswitches/8 hands/track IR.
http://www.tvgohome.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NO ARROWS!!!!!!!

Dnmy
02-28-2004, 04:49 PM
- Peripheral vison markers with cockpit on.
- No peripheral vison markers with cockpit on.

Like with so many switches in FB, you'd be able to get either option by flicking one radio switch.

The no arrow tunnel vision guys could then be happy and the guys who value SA and a more realistic view from the cockpit could be happy as well.

Problem solved http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
02-28-2004, 05:01 PM
Max, the 360 degree sphere of sky has 4pi steradians. The 360 degree hoola~hoop circle has 2pi radians. Steradian can be seen as a measure of angular area, much like "square degrees" while radians are a measure of angular length.

With only 120 degree wide view, you won't see much FishBowl effect. Has anyone here ever programmed a 120 degree field of view? I have. And I am using a 180 degree field of view for another sim. Even the 180 degree field of view would look totally realistic in a flight sim when using the proper trigonometry to avoid the infinite distortion near the edges as seen in (very) poorly made commercial astronomy software programs.



__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

wideblade
02-28-2004, 05:29 PM
I dont like the arrows but uou! that elumen screen is awesome,he he

LEXX_Luthor
02-28-2004, 05:42 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

----&gt; "Fb109 is over here"

&lt;----- "La~7 is over there"

"P~51D is under The Bar"
|
|
\ /

____
Okay Dnmy, you owe me a FishBowl joke. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-28-2004, 06:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wideblade:
Sadly yu dont understand the problem,yure not talking about progress,just regression.Perhaps its difficut for yu to understand it but please make a try---YOU ARE PLAYING IN A 2 DIMENSIONAL SCREEEN!!!!!---- if could be possible to play this at an IMAX cinema screen yur peripherall should make sense.

2dimensional has its own laws,the game itself has its own balance that makes what it is,a piece of art at the gaming world,if yu break its balance it can reach to be a cfs3 or one of those failed attemps.
Some people seems not understand what a simulation is about,oh Jesus is it so difficult???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the biggest areas where IL2 is weak is in the view system, but only weak on the level of the rest of itself! Run Rowans' MA sometime enough to get a feel for the view system, then go back to IL2. Tell me that MA has a worse view system. To me it's much smoother and more intuitive, a more natural feel BY FAR.

I also agree totally with DNMY and Clint, what they are trying to tell you. Please take the definition of Simulate to heart. I've been playing sims since the early 70's when they were cardboard. The SIMULATION was only rougher and had to be moved and interpreted by the players. Less real but still simulation. I've also rode in $3,000,000 and $5,000,000 full motion corporate jet simulators and I tell you it still isn't real, just closer.


Neal

wideblade
02-28-2004, 06:28 PM
Do not take me too serious while saying that about simulation but i find this thread interesting.
There are two main points: 1-peripherall vision itself-

2-arrows as an aid supply for the lack of peripherall vision.

-----------------------------------------------1-Ok,why yu think wasnt it taken into account when the sim was made??
1-Can it be implemented?
2-Arrows are a matter of taste as an option easy way to substitute the peripherall. Why some people say no arrows???

WWMaxGunz
02-28-2004, 06:35 PM
I don't want arrows. Too big. Dots at or around the edges would be nice if they couldn't be mistaken for planes in the sky. And only as an option.


Neal

Dnmy
02-28-2004, 07:43 PM
Identification tags are not needed.

like this is much better:

|&lt; &gt;|

the above depicting an object left and right, co alt, in your peripheral vision cone, but outside your FOV.(| is ofcourse the edge of the screen.)

or maybe like this:

|* *|

Depicting the same but then instead of arrows a different kind of peripheral vision marker. Mig Alley has the option to very subtle peripheral vision markers.

BTW a nice feature already present is that the markers/arrows grow in thickness with decreasing range, which is an excellent feature.

As a sidenote, an arrow or marker at the bottom edge of the screen is never applicable because your peripheral vision doesn't allow you to see through the bottom of the fuselage. In the cockpit you should only be able to pick up bogeys upwards and sideways by aid of your peripheral vision.

Basically, the markers/arrows should be visible on the edge of the screen when something is WVR (and visible), and inside your peripheral vision cone but outside your current FOV.

From my scetch it looks like the arrows and markers are disproportionally big, but imagine about 16" of space between the markers.

CARBONFREEZE
02-29-2004, 03:15 AM
Please don't turn this sim into another CFSx. If you want arrows and radar to do your looking for you, use wonderwoman view or go play CFS.

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

If guns are responsible for crime, my keyboard must be responsible for my spelling!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

http://www.pbase.com/image/25987401/medium.jpg
P-38 "Little Butch" Shemya, Alaska

Dnmy
02-29-2004, 05:02 AM
Pls refrain from comments if you can't read properly.

And draw your conclusions based on something else than your experience with CFS sims. Experience with CFS sims doesn't count.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Your comment is just another dweebish kneejerk reaction when arrows are mentioned.

Nobody here is asking for arrows and radar to do our looking for us. And if anything should be clear (but obviously not to you), this thread is about NOT using WW view.

Thank you

Dnmy
02-29-2004, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wideblade:
Do not take me too serious while saying that about simulation but i find this thread interesting.
There are two main points: 1-peripherall vision itself-

2-arrows as an aid supply for the lack of peripherall vision.

-----------------------------------------------1-Ok,why yu think wasnt it taken into account when the sim was made??
1-Can it be implemented?
2-Arrows are a matter of taste as an option easy way to substitute the peripherall. Why some people say no arrows???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't taken into account because of the cockpit design decisions, lack of foresight, funds, time, whatever.

Very few sims exist where peripheral vision has been nicely implemented. Which directly answers your question about whether it can be implemented. Ofcourse it can be implemented, because it's been done already in some sims.

People say no to arrows prolly because their simbackground stems from playing CFS series. And no selfrespecting FB simmer is going to take anything to do with CFS seriously http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Besides, arrows are always associated with arcade settings in FB. Because they are only visible in no cockpit view. So people have an unfounded fear that peripheral vision markers will make this sim non realistic.

But it's actually the other way around. NOT having peripheral vision makes a sim less realistic.

CD_Turbo
02-29-2004, 08:34 AM
I think its a bad idea because I prefer the way the cockpit system works now.
I also think the semi transparent beams was a bad idea because even if the pilot can move his head somewhat around the beams they still represent the cockpit of a typicalk plane, being a handicap in FW for example compared to bubble canopies of the p47 and p-51

enough rambling that was another topic alltogether.

CD_Turbo

Dnmy
02-29-2004, 03:29 PM
Where's the problem to play within your own preference as long as it's an option?

Remarks like i don't like it because i don't like it, don't add anything useful to the discussion.

wideblade
02-29-2004, 03:55 PM
Semitransparent beam? thats really odd puaghhhh!!!!