View Full Version : Between "wonder woman" view and full cockpit

12-02-2005, 03:45 PM
First off, this is not actually my idea, but someone elses. (can't remember who)

I feel full cockpit view is too restrictive, and no-cockpit view lets me see too much. Here's the idea-

Make all the structural supports in the cockpit partially transparent. Not too transparent, though. You want it to be enough so that you can track plane as it goes across your windshield, yet you want to keep planes like the 109 from having perfect vision. This would not effect the actually plane, just the windshield supports and struts.

As for realism, no matter how tightly you are buckled down, you can still move your head far enough to see around the supports.

12-02-2005, 04:09 PM
Better idea would be to incorporate a lean feature like they have in the new BoB. However, I would arrange it on a mouse click, say; right, and you would lean in whichever direction you moved the mouse while holding the right button down. Then have a return to center by, say: double right click.

12-02-2005, 05:01 PM
Yeah,that`s a very old idea but I guess 6DOF solved this...now if just anyone could use it...

I like the cockpit as it is now.This way you really see the penalty some pits have in visibility like 109 pit compared to P51 pit.

12-02-2005, 06:03 PM
I like the current arrangement--it took me a while to get used to, and it wasn't until I got TrackIR until I was able to really enjoy it, but I couldn't go back to WW vision now.

12-02-2005, 08:48 PM
my 2 cents , I love the cockpit view but if it was just 1 or 2 inches lower for less obstruction it would be perfect.That might have been worth 3 cents! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

12-02-2005, 08:50 PM
I don't like the idea of using keys or mouse clicks to move one's head to see around a strut or something. This gives the sim player one more thing to do with his hands that should occur natrually. It would give people who can afford something like a TrackIR an even greater advantage than they do now.

I think it's an interesting idea, but I would take it one step further and only have it happen when you are locked on a target and only for the strut, frame, whatever that the target crosses behind.

12-02-2005, 09:00 PM
i cant wait till our BOB comes out! gona feel less restricted then.

12-02-2005, 09:21 PM
http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/03-enhanced-games/game-gt-legends.html scroll down to the video part.
PS bad driver on board

12-03-2005, 10:48 AM
The real problem with visibility in-game is the fixed cyclops point of view; human vision is (usually) stereoscopic, and a pilot in a cockpit can lean and stretch to see outside his aircraft to a much greater degree than the players of this game. Thus, even with TIR3, the windshield and canopy framing seems much too thick, and the freakin' AI seem to have an uncanny ability to hide behind them.

The game's restrictions may be based on computer limitations at the time the game engine was developed, or it may have been Oleg's means of putting an end to an ongoing arguement in the development team. It doesn't matter, we have what we have.

Hopefully, the upcoming (Lord willing and the creek don't rise) Battle of Britain sim will provide the virtual pilot some options for his viewpoint; the whole reason for the 'blown' canopies on the Spitfire was to improve the pilots' range of vision after initial clashes demonstrated that the original narrow hood was too restrictive.

If the BoB sim doesn't change the viewpoint standard, one of the early Spit's original advantages over the Emil will be lost; God knows that the .303s are going to be even less effective than the real things were, if current treatment of Western MGs are any indication.



12-03-2005, 04:37 PM
This semi-transparent structure is not a bad compromise, actually. And you can see it at work in Target: Rabaul's (http://www.targetware.net) Zeros and a few other planes.

12-04-2005, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
God knows that the .303s are going to be even less effective than the real things were, if current treatment of Western MGs are any indication.



As an eight gun set-up they weren't that ineffective against fighters in 1939-1941. During the BoB, statistically Spitfires and Hurricanes destroyed a greater percentage of fighters that they hit than did the 109. Even given that damaged German fighters had further to go to regain their bases, and so more were lost crashlanding or ditching in the sea, the figures indicate that the 8x.303 was at least as effective as the 2x20mm MGFF and 2x7.62 of the 109 in pure fighter encounters. Armoured bombers...that's a different matter. Cannons needed there for quick results.

12-04-2005, 05:50 PM
What armored bombers? Bombers were not particularly armored at that point in the war either.

If the record is any indication, the reason bombers were harder to bring down during the BoB is that they were harder to judge the range on than fighters; pilots started firing from farther away, scored fewer and more scattered hits from too great a distance for the rifle caliber bullets to have their best effect.

The RAF's air to air gunnery standards in the early war were nothing to write home about anyway, but the .303s were not a war winning armament for anyone.

And now we have a hijacked thread on our consciences...