PDA

View Full Version : Man, 6DOF ROCKS!!



Airmikey2
01-23-2005, 09:03 AM
My wife bought me a Trackir Vector for Christmas...and I finally gave in and bought CFS 3 on sale for twenty bucks.
I am as blown away by 6DOF as I was with Trackir 1...it is going to change everything..again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oleg has got to get the ball rollin on this thing - it rocks and it rocks hard.

Airmikey

ps. CFS 3 doesnt even compare to IL2 for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but that is another thread..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GT182
01-23-2005, 09:31 AM
Airmikey2, you lucky devil you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
But not CFS3 tho. LOL

Seeing FS2004 has come down in price, may I suggest you get that and try the 6DOF software with it. You won't be disappointed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TAGERT.
01-23-2005, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Airmikey2:
My wife bought me a Trackir Vector for Christmas...and I finally gave in and bought CFS 3 on sale for twenty bucks.
I am as blown away by 6DOF as I was with Trackir 1...it is going to change everything..again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oleg has got to get the ball rollin on this thing - it rocks and it rocks hard.

Airmikey

ps. CFS 3 doesnt even compare to IL2 for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but that is another thread..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sadly the best WWII flight sim made in the last ten years (IL2-PF) will not be married with the best peripheral device feature made in the last ten years (TIR 6DOF). As far as immersion goes 6DOF is the best thing to come along sense the joystick.. 6DOF is not a gradual progression like the throttle, rudder, and TIR1 were but a real leap forward. Sadly though Oleg has decided not to *allow* the good people at Natural Point to enable the new feature because of a few cockpit clipping issues that would look slightly odd from certain angles.. When it comes to FM's I'm glad Oleg is an anal perfectionist.. But when it comes to cockpit art it ends up being a negative imho.

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-23-2005, 09:55 AM
So when I finally acquire the funds to purchase TrackIR I should not even bother with the 6DOF feature? I was really looking forward to this. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Airmikey2
01-23-2005, 10:23 AM
Havok - I would still get the Vector since BOB will surely be fitted for 6DOF - and other sims like GTR are apparently incorporating it as well.. Besides - the three dot reference makes for smoother tracking with PF in 2DOF mode..

Airmikey

Tully__
01-23-2005, 11:37 AM
Havok, even though the full 6DOF is not supported by the IL2 series, you still get a benefit. The 6DOF software isolates head rotation from sideways head movement, allowing you to move around in your seat a lot more without messing up your view. Only when you actually turn or tilt your head will your view change.

heywooood
01-23-2005, 01:25 PM
THATS an interesting point...and a good reason to buy it anyways....BoB aside.

its too bad 1c or Trakir folks cant reduce degree of head vector to 3deg. for PF/FB users...

Yellonet
01-23-2005, 02:35 PM
$50 for that little piece!?!

Shouldn't be to hard to manufacture yourself though. The software is free isn't it?

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-23-2005, 07:46 PM
Good points...thanks. I suppose I will goahead and purchase the expansion as well when I finally get TrackIR...thanks again.

Obi_Kwiet
01-23-2005, 08:32 PM
You would have to completely redesign every cockpit in the game. They are designed to be viewed from two points. You may as well do no-cockpit if you're going to it with out redesigning. It would be WAY worse than a few textures showing up wrong. Just wait for BoB.

Slammin_
01-23-2005, 08:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yellonet:
$50 for that little piece!?!

Shouldn't be to hard to manufacture yourself though. The software is free isn't it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The software attaches to your hardware serial number or something like that. $50 is cheap for what we get I think. Mine is on order.

BaldieJr
01-23-2005, 08:55 PM
Yeah, wait till 2007 when BoB is released.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

TAGERT.
01-23-2005, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
You would have to completely redesign every cockpit in the game. They are designed to be viewed from two points. You may as well do no-cockpit if you're going to it with out redesigning. It would be WAY worse than a few textures showing up wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not True.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Just wait for BoB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cant.. To me a good FM is important.. Good graphics are too.. Good online play is a must if the offline sucks like it does in IL2-PF.. Also a fair online, no hacks, which leaves most of the CFS stuff out.. But out of all those things listed.. Imersion is at the top of the list.. So any sim that meets those requirments and ill dump Il2-PF in a hart beat for it. Problem is there probally wont be any out prior to BoB.

Hiriyu
01-23-2005, 11:29 PM
I'm curious about the 3-dot cluster used with the vector clip. Could somebody post a quick snapshot of the reflection as seen through the Natural Point tracking console? I'd be much appreciative.

luke97
01-24-2005, 12:11 AM
Hiriyu:
http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/products/images/sw-v4-preview.jpg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PrimaryMan
01-24-2005, 12:45 AM
Just thought I'd add a few little tips I used to get smoother tracking.
Firstly I changed my cap. This got rid of the now superfluous centre dot, I found sometimes when you tilt your head up the software would jump and start tracking this dot instead of the top dot giving a very jerky view. Note: If you really like your Naturalpoint hat you can put some tape over the centre dot on the peak.
Secondly, I found that the software would lose track of all the dots when I turned my head away from the centre of the monitor because the target rectangles reduced in size to small squares. Your virtual head would just stop so I got out some plyers and bent the rectangles to make them more convex in shape so when viewed from the side they retain their rectangular shape.
Disclaimer: Only do this if your careful. I won't be held responsible if you stuff up your clip LOL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
After I did this I get super smooth tracking and can turn my virtual head nearly 180 degrees in both directions.

As for 6DOF support in PF I'm not sure why Oleg is so prissy about his c-pits. In FS9 there are no clipping restraints and you can move your virtual head outside the airplane, look back and get crazy texturing errors and missing polygons. However if you use self control and limit your head movements to what would be realistic everything would be fine. If your choose to act stupid and unrealistically thats your call just don't go complaining. Its kinda like the wing fold button, there nothing to stop you using this in midair. Oleg didn't put a fail safe in the game because if you were playing realistically you would never push that button in mid-air anyways. Same deal see, I you don't want funky holes in your c-pit don't stick your head through the canopy. My 2c.

tracker45
01-24-2005, 01:09 AM
I agree! It can't be very hard to put the 6d0f in PF and let us decide if we want to use it.Easy enough to tweak so your head doesn't go through the canopy.
I can't see the clipping issue being any worse than Cfs3 of FS2004 and its absolutly fantastic in those sims.

Chivas
01-24-2005, 01:18 AM
I've been using Track IR3 with vector in FB since it came out and its outstanding. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I can hear the cry's of indignation and cheating now if Oleg enabed 6DOF for FB. I don't blame him for giving it a pass. He's got his hand full finishing PF and may even be able to start work on BOB again. Atleast I hope so.

Hiriyu
01-24-2005, 01:39 AM
Thankee Luke97 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

~S~

joeap
01-24-2005, 02:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PrimaryMan:
Just thought I'd add a few little tips I used to get smoother tracking.
Firstly I changed my cap. This got rid of the now superfluous centre dot, I found sometimes when you tilt your head up the software would jump and start tracking this dot instead of the top dot giving a very jerky view. Note: If you really like your Naturalpoint hat you can put some tape over the centre dot on the peak.
Secondly, I found that the software would lose track of all the dots when I turned my head away from the centre of the monitor because the target rectangles reduced in size to small squares. Your virtual head would just stop so I got out some plyers and bent the rectangles to make them more convex in shape so when viewed from the side they retain their rectangular shape.
Disclaimer: Only do this if your careful. I won't be held responsible if you stuff up your clip LOL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
After I did this I get super smooth tracking and can turn my virtual head nearly 180 degrees in both directions.

As for 6DOF support in PF I'm not sure why Oleg is so prissy about his c-pits. In FS9 there are no clipping restraints and you can move your virtual head outside the airplane, look back and get crazy texturing errors and missing polygons. However if you use self control and limit your head movements to what would be realistic everything would be fine. If your choose to act stupid and unrealistically thats your call just don't go complaining. Its kinda like the wing fold button, there nothing to stop you using this in midair. Oleg didn't put a fail safe in the game because if you were playing realistically you would never push that button in mid-air anyways. Same deal see, I you don't want funky holes in your c-pit don't stick your head through the canopy. My 2c. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well since folding your wings in mid-air does cause a problem...but we never hear whines about it you are right. Well I can guarantee that there would be whines for the cockpits in PF.

TAGERT.
01-24-2005, 09:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
I can hear the cry's of indignation and cheating now if Oleg enabed 6DOF for FB. I don't blame him for giving it a pass. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If that was his reason it would be a lame one! Because there will always be someone that has a so called (or precived) hardware advantage over another that some noob that will cry cheat! It has been that was sense the first flight sim.. Back when the joystick hat was the exception and not the rule, noobs that didn't have a hat cry cheat.. Back when the throttle was the exception and not the rule, noobs that didn't have a throttle cry cheat.. Back when the rudder peddles were the exception and not the rule, noobs that didn't have rudder peddles cry cheat.. When someone has a force feedback joystick, noobs that don't have a force feedback joystick cry cheat.. When someone has a video card that can do 60fps at 1600x1200, noobs that have a vid card that can only do 40fps at 1024x768 cry cheat.. When someone has a 21" monitor, noobs that only have a 17" monitor cry cheat.. And the list goes on! It is endless and as long as we have options in how we spend our money on PC's and periferals it will never end. Which is why a sim maker should never use that excuse for NOT implementing an new option or feature.

Scen
01-24-2005, 10:38 AM
This has been beaten to death a zillion times but I always find that most guys that are against implementing 6DOF don't even own a TIR.

And they don't want to own one either.

I totally agree with Tagart that the cheat excuse for not implemeting it is weak at best. There are plenty of no-cockpit servers out there to play around on. Most of the guys that own a TIR play with the cockpit on for immersion factor.

The cockpit issue is also lame. I've seen some of the simulated issues (cockpit tearing) and the excuse of compromised artwork is pretty weak.

Coding wise it doesnt seem to be that big of an issue either considering CFS3 wasn't meant to support it either.

Bottom line. The reason why its not going to get implemented is Oleg doesn't want to hear about all the whining from the online community especially the (hardcore) about how its a cheat. Or from people complaining that it produces graphical issues. It's one more thing to support.

I agree its a bummer that we won't see it in IL2+PF considering its the best WWII sim out there.


Just my 2 Cents

Chivas
01-24-2005, 10:52 AM
Its obvious that with 6DOF you would be able to see around the cockpit thru areas not modeled. This is not acceptable in most peoples minds. It would be ugly, and Oleg has other projects that need his attention to stay in business.

I have Track IR Vector and willing to wait. Its simply not worth the time and effort for Oleg to implement it properly for the IL-2's engine. I wish it were.

Scen
01-24-2005, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
Its obvious that with 6DOF you would be able to see around the cockpit thru areas not modeled. This is not acceptable in most peoples minds. It would be ugly, and Oleg has other projects that need his attention to stay in business.

I have Track IR Vector and willing to wait. Its simply not worth the time and effort for Oleg to implement it properly for the IL-2's engine. I wish it were. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually we don't know what exactly the problem would be and with what cockpits because it's not implemented. Also it can be limited as well.

"Not worth the time and effort". This is where I completely disagree. Considering we will have to wait for BOB which I'm willing to do (not that I have a choice) It would be worth it because we are not going to have nearly the plane and theatre choices we have now. Not to mention BOB won't be here until next year or maybe even longer.

The point is somewhat moot anyways because it won't be implemented however its a nice thought.

Scendore

TAGERT.
01-24-2005, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
Its obvious that with 6DOF you would be able to see around the cockpit thru areas not modeled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Obvious? Well than it should be a simple mater for you to present *something* here other than your words to back up your statement.. Or if so obvious it should be simple to explain why in a sentence or too.. Yet you presented nothing.

Simple fact is people like Gibbage has posted pics of what some cockpits look like with the POV shifted.. And it does not allow you to see *around* the cockpit or *thru* the cockpit to gain an unrealistic advantage in anyway.. ie xray vision.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
This is not acceptable in most peoples minds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
It would be ugly, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ugly is a relitive term.. what might be ugly to one person may be beautful to another.. So at least provide the option for the to decide... If you dont like it.. Dont use it. Simple

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
and Oleg has other projects that need his attention to stay in business. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Also not ture, in that natural point has to do most of the work.. And IL2-PF is a test bench for BoB so lessons learned here could be usefull to other business (aka BoB)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
I have Track IR Vector and willing to wait. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That nice.. But you have to realise that you dont speak for eveyone let alone most... If it was an option, the option would be there for you to not use.. simple.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
Its simply not worth the time and effort for Oleg to implement it properly for the IL-2's engine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
I wish it were. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is.

Chivas
01-24-2005, 01:11 PM
"Not worth the time and effort" maybe be not for some but for Oleg it his time and effort that would be wasted.
Hes trying to move to something bigger and better that may put food on his table and keep his empoyees working.

TAGERT.
01-24-2005, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
"Not worth the time and effort" maybe be not for some but for Oleg it his time and effort that would be wasted.
Hes trying to move to something bigger and better that may put food on his table and keep his empoyees working. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Food on the table.. Well at least I made my point.. talk is cheap in that when asked to expand on the so called obvious things you side step that and went to the starving children excuse.. Nice try.. Works on bleading harts lib types.. But not me! Like Scen pointed out.. Only thing probally making Oleg not do is is whinny cheat types

Chivas
01-24-2005, 01:15 PM
Ok Tagert please tell me how Oleg can make a profit from this venture.

Chivas
01-24-2005, 01:16 PM
I know Taggert its all about you.

TAGERT.
01-24-2005, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
Ok Tagert please tell me how Oleg can make a profit from this venture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, will do as soon as you address the Obvious issue.. Im still waiting on that and very interested in what and why you *think* that is the case.

TAGERT.
01-24-2005, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
I know Taggert its all about you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actully it is all about you, in that Im the one that wants the option provided for people to decide.. You dont want the option provided and want to make the decision for everyone.. You a control freq or something?

Chivas
01-24-2005, 01:30 PM
Oleg has stated the whats beyond the cockpit has been modelled from only one point of view. I guess Oleg could draw you picture but he has better things to do. I can't be arsed to find this statement. Or beat this dead horse. ~Salute~

BlakJakOfSpades
01-24-2005, 01:51 PM
i dont get it, what is the deal, i really can not count how many times this has been explained to YOU people who are against this. WITH a restriction in place to how FAR you can lean THEN there should be FEW clipping issues, which could JUSTIFY its inclusion. i completely understand that WITHOUT these restrictions it would make the cockpits UGLY and possibly allow you to cheat, but I DONT WANT NO LIMITS I WANT LIMITS. now, i apollogize for the caps BUT i DONT think YOU can READ. you want to shut me up? get oleg to comment on how it would be a problem IF he LIMITED the range of lean to 2 or 3 inches. if he gives me a reasonable explanation as to how this would cause a problem THEN i will let the issue drop FOREVER, got it?

Scen
01-24-2005, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
Oleg has stated the whats beyond the cockpit has been modelled from only one point of view. I guess Oleg could draw you picture but he has better things to do. I can't be arsed to find this statement. Or beat this dead horse. ~Salute~ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again that's an official statement and it doesn't reflect the real issue. Read between the lines. He doesn't want to implement it because this community would freak out over said issues. It will add to his list of things to do is all. It makes sense why he wouldn't want to do it but the issues he's talking about can be overcome.

It has nothing to do with it being possible or valuable for that matter. It has to do with the community complaining. That's why I find fault with that kind of thinking. If you don't like it don't use it.

BTW the same problem exists with CFS3 and somehow its working just fine.

Regardless if you don't want to see it implemented... 6DOF is the future of simming and it would be great to see it in the IL2 series.

Scendore

Chivas
01-24-2005, 01:59 PM
YOU DON'T PAY HIM ENOUGH....GOT IT

BlakJakOfSpades
01-24-2005, 02:14 PM
So you're saying that because he would make no money off this, he should just forget it. I mean, he's made so much money off all the free patches he gave us, there was all that money for bothering to impliment trackir in the first place, I see your point why should he bother to implement this? After all, he would have to stop the presses, his entire team would have to work on this for weeks and weeks, or maybe the naturalpoint team said they'd do most of the work, i dont remember, in any case, you've beaten me, i have no good, logical argument to stand up to your superior caps lock skills.

TAGERT.
01-24-2005, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
Oleg has stated <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Link? Didnt think so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
the whats beyond the cockpit has been modelled from only one point of view. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Beyond the cockpit? What does that have to do with anything? As for within the cockpit, pictures posted here by people like Gibbage show than the cockpits, though not perfect, do account for alot of POV shift.. As a mater of FACT you can notice some POV shift when pulling hard g's.. Thus proving your statement is unfounded. The current crop of cockpits are not pefect, and from some angles could look strange (ie no frame behind gunsight to hold it up) but the good of 6DOF far outweights those types of bad imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
I guess Oleg could draw you picture but he has better things to do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is why I have refered to Gibbages pictures.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
I can't be arsed to find this statement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Ill bet you cant be arsed!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
Or beat this dead horse. ~Salute~ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dead horse.. starving childern.. All neat stuff.. But what does it have to do with you expanding on the Obvious statement you made earlier and have yet to address?

TAGERT.
01-24-2005, 02:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
YOU DON'T PAY HIM ENOUGH....GOT IT <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Lighten up Francis

WorldShatterer
01-24-2005, 02:27 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>Originally posted by Chivas:
"Not worth the time and effort" maybe be not for some but for Oleg it his time and effort that would be wasted.
Hes trying to move to something bigger and better that may put food on his table and keep his empoyees working. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Food on the table.. Well at least I made my point.. talk is cheap in that when asked to expand on the so called obvious things you side step that and went to the starving children excuse.. Nice try.. Works on bleading harts lib types.. But not me! Like Scen pointed out.. Only thing probally making Oleg not do is is whinny cheat types <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chivas is working on bleeding heart lib types? I don't think so. He only indicated that Oleg wants to make a profit and the way to do it is by maximizing his time most efficiently towards that end. If working on BoB allows him to do this then that is what he will do. Don't get me wrong, I don't know the real reason why Oleg does not want to do 6DOF. I WILL give him the benefit of the doubt though (whether I like the explanation or not). The reality is that he has given me one of the best flight sims I have flown in the 25 years I have been doing this. I can't and do not expect their team to give me every little thing I want. They have to make decisions given their limited time and then move on to bigger things. The attitude Chivas has expressed is actually fairly conservative. He recognizes that Oleg and his team need to move on in such a way that they can make money. And yes, money is necessary to put food on your table. At least in the world I live in. I fully hope that Oleg and crew will be able to make as much money as possible. It is not only good for them but for the flight sim community in general. Go capitalism!

BTW, the bleeding heart lib types are the ones who expect **** for free at other peoples' expenses. Look, I would like to see 6DOF implemented as well but ultimately Oleg and reality have to make the call. The nice thing is that Oleg and crew are actually going out of their way to give us quite a lot. Sure, many of us may have expected more with the original release of PF but they are doing a decent job of listening to the community and addressing issues. Between creating patches for Il-2 and PF as well as working on BoB has got to be very time consuming. I appreciate the work they are doing.

I'm not sure how making money to "put food on his table and keep his employees working" equates with "starving children" but oh well.

WorldShatterer
01-24-2005, 02:34 PM
Tagert,

Don't take my post too hard. Primarily I'm a lurker but I have had an opportunity to read a lot of your posts and I have enjoyed them. I simply didn't see anyhthing in the posts by Chivas to indicate that he was a bleeding heart lib type or that he was trying to appeal to them.

Scen
01-24-2005, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
YOU DON'T PAY HIM ENOUGH....GOT IT <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd be willing to pay him... Now what's your point?

Also think a little outside the box here for a moment. You say he wants to go on to another product release. Didn't he release a product not to long ago? Well he got my 39 bucks and to be honest its less than a product. Look at all the reviews its without a doubt Half Baked period. Bottom line is I support the efforts and I've paid top dollar for his products so much so I bought my pals copies...

I still don't get your position at all. Do you really want 6DOF?

Or are you betting on BOB?

Scendore

WorldShatterer
01-24-2005, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
Oleg has stated the whats beyond the cockpit has been modelled from only one point of view. I guess Oleg could draw you picture but he has better things to do. I can't be arsed to find this statement. Or beat this dead horse. ~Salute~ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again that's an official statement and it doesn't reflect the real issue. Read between the lines. He doesn't want to implement it because this community would freak out over said issues. It will add to his list of things to do is all. It makes sense why he wouldn't want to do it but the issues he's talking about can be overcome.

It has nothing to do with it being possible or valuable for that matter. It has to do with the community complaining. That's why I find fault with that kind of thinking. If you don't like it don't use it.

BTW the same problem exists with CFS3 and somehow its working just fine.

Regardless if you don't want to see it implemented... 6DOF is the future of simming and it would be great to see it in the IL2 series.

Scendore <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may be right. Maybe he doesn't want to do it because of the complaining that will result. I can't say I blame him though if that is the case. Keep in mind that there is no evidence to suggest that this is his reason. You mention "reading between the lines." This suggests that you are engaged in educated guessing. While you might be right I will go ahead and accept what Oleg has to say. He is the developer and ultimately he should have the say as far as what is implemented and what is not. I will have to accept his word over your guess.

WorldShatterer
01-24-2005, 03:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
YOU DON'T PAY HIM ENOUGH....GOT IT <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd be willing to pay him... Now what's your point?

Also think a little outside the box here for a moment. You say he wants to go on to another product release. Didn't he release a product not to long ago? Well he got my 39 bucks and to be honest its less than a product. Look at all the reviews its without a doubt Half Baked period. Bottom line is I support the efforts and I've paid top dollar for his products so much so I bought my pals copies...

I still don't get your position at all. Do you really want 6DOF?

Or are you betting on BOB?

Scendore <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey scen,

Well, we all see things from different perspectives. I remember 25 years ago when I excitedly spent 50 dollars for F-15 Strike Eagle for the Commodore 64 (a 256K game). It was one of the best purchases I ever made. For most of those 25 years flight simmers were lucky to receive even one flyable aircraft and limited features. I am very proud of the fact that I can fly in the best WWII environment ever programmed for a PC. Pacific Fighters has been one of the best purchases I have ever made. I have certainly gotten my 40 bucks out of it. Personally I would have paid a lot more. Considering all the work that goes into flight sims today and the diminishing returns in money that these developers get I believe they deserve more. Maybe I'm happy with PF because I remember my roots and I know where we have been and how far we have come. I am also the art department manager for a newly created computer flight sim company and we are scared to death that we will never see any profits for our efforts (at least me anyway) and that despite our work (no matter how good it is), we will not be able to continue. Flight sims are dying because greater and greater expectations are being placed on game developers and returns are diminishing. The Internet has created an environment of unhappy and discontented people who have a habit of seeing the glass half empty as opposed to the glass half full. Let'sd leave these guys alone even if it's for a single day.

I'd be willing to pay him... Now what's your point?

So would I. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Do you really want 6DOF?

I can't speak for Chivas or anyone else but I suspect (educated guessing admittedly) that Oleg and crew would love the feature. If they do not do it I suspect it will be because they feel they have valid reasons. Even 2DOF in PF is quite awesome and I recommend anyone out there to pick up a TIR for PF if they have not done so.

Scen
01-24-2005, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WorldShatterer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
Oleg has stated the whats beyond the cockpit has been modelled from only one point of view. I guess Oleg could draw you picture but he has better things to do. I can't be arsed to find this statement. Or beat this dead horse. ~Salute~ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again that's an official statement and it doesn't reflect the real issue. Read between the lines. He doesn't want to implement it because this community would freak out over said issues. It will add to his list of things to do is all. It makes sense why he wouldn't want to do it but the issues he's talking about can be overcome.

It has nothing to do with it being possible or valuable for that matter. It has to do with the community complaining. That's why I find fault with that kind of thinking. If you don't like it don't use it.

BTW the same problem exists with CFS3 and somehow its working just fine.

Regardless if you don't want to see it implemented... 6DOF is the future of simming and it would be great to see it in the IL2 series.

Scendore <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may be right. Maybe he doesn't want to do it because of the complaining that will result. I can't say I blame him though if that is the case. Keep in mind that there is no evidence to suggest that this is his reason. You mention "reading between the lines." This suggests that you are engaged in educated guessing. While you might be right I will go ahead and accept what Oleg has to say. He is the developer and ultimately he should have the say as far as what is implemented and what is not. I will have to accept his word over your guess. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed I'm taking a SWAG at it.

I can't say I blame him either given some of the comments on these forums however he has bent many a rule for the sake of support his product.

How many times has the FMs been tweeked? What about weapons like the .50 Cal? What about the muzzle flash issues? The list goes on and on and believe me I'm very happy with the support.

My point is 6DOF is clearly the future of simming and just as important as fixing or tweaking based upon the community's input.

Personally I understand the need to make a business decision and move on however I'd be willing to pay for this feature so what now?

From what I understand it wouldn't take much to implement the code its more of an issue with regards to the artwork.

Again it may never happen but I can still complain about it.

Scendore

Scen
01-24-2005, 03:12 PM
Hey scen,

Well, we all see things from different perspectives. I remember 25 years ago when I excitedly spent 50 dollars for F-15 Strike Eagle for the Commodore 64 (a 256K game). It was one of the best purchases I ever made. For most of those 25 years flight simmers were lucky to receive even one flyable aircraft and limited features. I am very proud of the fact that I can fly in the best WWII environment ever programmed for a PC. Pacific Fighters has been one of the best purchases I have ever made. I have certainly gotten my 40 bucks out of it. Personally I would have paid a lot more. Considering all the work that goes into flight sims today and the diminishing returns in money that these developers get I believe they deserve more. Maybe I'm happy with FO because I remember my roots and I know where we have been and how far we have come. I am also the art department manager for a newly created computer flight sim company and we are scare to death that we will never see any profits for our efforts and that despite our work (no matter how good it is), we will not be able to continue. Flight sims are dying because greater and greater expectations are being placed on game developers and returns are diminishing. The Internet has created an environment of unhappy and discontented people who have a habit of seeing the glass half empty as opposed to the glass half full. Let'sd leave these guys alone even if it's for a single day.

_I'd be willing to pay him... Now what's your point?_

So would I. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/QUOTE]

BTW I come from the same background staring with F-15 on my Commodore 64 and I remember my days with Red Baron Chuck Yeager's Aircombat Falcon3 etc.


I understand what you're saying but you raised an interesting point. You know how risky it is to launch a new product and many things can go wrong between here and there right? Well that can be said about BOB and yes it's sad. Given most publishers and Licensing people are heading the way of the Console there is a lot of risk in waiting for BOB and the implementation of 6DOF.

I was just visiting a retail store yesterday and the writing is on the wall literally... PC titles make up a very small spot on the wall now adays. Sad really it used to be the other way around.

Eitherway I would like to see this technology embraced. It's that important.

Scendore

WorldShatterer
01-24-2005, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WorldShatterer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
Oleg has stated the whats beyond the cockpit has been modelled from only one point of view. I guess Oleg could draw you picture but he has better things to do. I can't be arsed to find this statement. Or beat this dead horse. ~Salute~ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again that's an official statement and it doesn't reflect the real issue. Read between the lines. He doesn't want to implement it because this community would freak out over said issues. It will add to his list of things to do is all. It makes sense why he wouldn't want to do it but the issues he's talking about can be overcome.

It has nothing to do with it being possible or valuable for that matter. It has to do with the community complaining. That's why I find fault with that kind of thinking. If you don't like it don't use it.

BTW the same problem exists with CFS3 and somehow its working just fine.

Regardless if you don't want to see it implemented... 6DOF is the future of simming and it would be great to see it in the IL2 series.

Scendore <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may be right. Maybe he doesn't want to do it because of the complaining that will result. I can't say I blame him though if that is the case. Keep in mind that there is no evidence to suggest that this is his reason. You mention "reading between the lines." This suggests that you are engaged in educated guessing. While you might be right I will go ahead and accept what Oleg has to say. He is the developer and ultimately he should have the say as far as what is implemented and what is not. I will have to accept his word over your guess. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed I'm taking a SWAG at it.

I can't say I blame him either given some of the comments on these forums however he has bent many a rule for the sake of support his product.

How many times has the FMs been tweeked? What about weapons like the .50 Cal? What about the muzzle flash issues? The list goes on on and and believe me I'm very happy with the support.

My point is 6DOF is clearly the future of simming and just as important as fixing or tweaking based upon the community's input.

Personally I understand the need to make a business decision and move on however I'd be willing to pay for this feature so what now?

From what I understand it wouldn't take much to implement the code its more of an issue with regards to the artwork.

Again it may never happen but I can still complain about it.

Scendore <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is 6DOF is clearly the future of simming and just as important as fixing or tweaking based upon the community's input.

I agree. Sadly, Il-2 and PF are not the future of gaming but the past and present. Their cockpits most likely were not made to be used in a 6DOF fashon. I am currently working on the cockpits for a program called Fighter Ops. A few months ago I built a 3D cockpit model for the T-38A training aircraft. Shortly after I built the model we heard about the 6DOF feature and decided that we would implement it. I got stuck having to do major modifications to that cockpit in anticipation of 6DOF because my cockpit was built like a lot of cockpits are. It was built like a set on a movie. Anything not seen from the pilot eye simply wasn't built and didn't exist. Assuming you could move your head around you would have seen a lot of weird sh*t. Holes in the floors, nothing but empty sky behind the seats, etc. I couldn't imagine having to clean up the issues with 50-100 cockpits. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Of course this problem might not be as apparent in the Il-2 and PF cockpits but I can see it as a potential worry.

WorldShatterer
01-24-2005, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scen:
Hey scen,

Well, we all see things from different perspectives. I remember 25 years ago when I excitedly spent 50 dollars for F-15 Strike Eagle for the Commodore 64 (a 256K game). It was one of the best purchases I ever made. For most of those 25 years flight simmers were lucky to receive even one flyable aircraft and limited features. I am very proud of the fact that I can fly in the best WWII environment ever programmed for a PC. Pacific Fighters has been one of the best purchases I have ever made. I have certainly gotten my 40 bucks out of it. Personally I would have paid a lot more. Considering all the work that goes into flight sims today and the diminishing returns in money that these developers get I believe they deserve more. Maybe I'm happy with FO because I remember my roots and I know where we have been and how far we have come. I am also the art department manager for a newly created computer flight sim company and we are scare to death that we will never see any profits for our efforts and that despite our work (no matter how good it is), we will not be able to continue. Flight sims are dying because greater and greater expectations are being placed on game developers and returns are diminishing. The Internet has created an environment of unhappy and discontented people who have a habit of seeing the glass half empty as opposed to the glass half full. Let'sd leave these guys alone even if it's for a single day.

_I'd be willing to pay him... Now what's your point?_

So would I. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW I come from the same background staring with F-15 on my Commodore 64 and I remember my days with Red Baron Chuck Yeager's Aircombat Falcon3 etc.


I understand what you're saying but you raised an interesting point. You know how risky it is to launch a new product and many things can go wrong between here and there right? Well that can be said about BOB and yes it's sad. Given most publishers and Licensing people are heading the way of the Console there is a lot of risk in waiting for BOB and the implementation of 6DOF.

I was just visiting a retail store yesterday and the writing is on the wall literally... PC titles make up a very small spot on the wall now adays. Sad really it used to be the other way around.

Eitherway I would like to see this technology embraced. It's that important.

Scendore <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have faith that 6DOF will appear on BoB.. I'm sure they want it and I'm sure they are still early enough in the process to work that feature in. I'm sure I will be a bit bothered just like you if 6DOF doesn't make it into BoB. I'm simply not as worried about PF since it is a released program and I think Oleg and crew have their hands full.

I enjoy your commets BTW.

Red Baron Chuck Yeager's Aircombat Falcon3

Yep, I have played all three of those. Red Baron actually has the record for having been on my HDs longer than any other flight sim (6 years).

Scen
01-24-2005, 03:26 PM
I agree. Sadly, Il-2 and PF are not the future of gaming but the past and present. Their cockpits most likely were not made to be used in a 6DOF fashon. I am currently working on the cockpits for a program called Fighter Ops. A few months ago I built a 3D cockpit model for the T-38A training aircraft. Shortly after I built the model we heard about the 6DOF feature and decided that we would implement it. I got stuck having to do major modifications to that cockpit in anticipation of 6DOF because my cockpit was built like a lot of cockpits are. It was built like a set on a movie. Anything not seen from the pilot eye simply wasn't built and didn't exist. Assuming you could move your head around you would have seen a _lot_ of weird sh*t. Holes in the floors, nothing but empty sky behind the seats, etc. I couldn't imagine having to clean up the issues with 50-100 cockpits. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Of course this problem might not be as apparent in the Il-2 and PF cockpits but I can see it as a potential worry.


You may be right given the number of cockpits it may increase the possiblities of issues by a lot.

BTW I recognize you from Frugals forums...

Scendore

WorldShatterer
01-24-2005, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scen:
I agree. Sadly, Il-2 and PF are not the future of gaming but the past and present. Their cockpits most likely were not made to be used in a 6DOF fashon. I am currently working on the cockpits for a program called Fighter Ops. A few months ago I built a 3D cockpit model for the T-38A training aircraft. Shortly after I built the model we heard about the 6DOF feature and decided that we would implement it. I got stuck having to do major modifications to that cockpit in anticipation of 6DOF because my cockpit was built like a lot of cockpits are. It was built like a set on a movie. Anything not seen from the pilot eye simply wasn't built and didn't exist. Assuming you could move your head around you would have seen a _lot_ of weird sh*t. Holes in the floors, nothing but empty sky behind the seats, etc. I couldn't imagine having to clean up the issues with 50-100 cockpits. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Of course this problem might not be as apparent in the Il-2 and PF cockpits but I can see it as a potential worry.


You may be right given the number of cockpits it may increase the possiblities of issues by a lot.

BTW I recognize you from Frugals forums...

Scendore <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, Shatterer of Worlds there. Unfortunately they didn't leave enough space in the sighn up fields for me to use that user ID. I had to shorten it to WorldShatterer. I almost never post here but since this topic was related to cockpits and the 6DOF issue and since I have personal experience with that topic I figured I would stick my head in. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I recognize you as well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TAGERT.
01-24-2005, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WorldShatterer:
Tagert,

Don't take my post too hard. Primarily I'm a lurker but I have had an opportunity to read a lot of your posts and I have enjoyed them. I simply didn't see anyhthing in the posts by Chivas to indicate that he was a bleeding heart lib type or that he was trying to appeal to them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>None taken.. Just when he made the statement that the decision was based on some aspect (3D cockpit cant handle 6DOF) and when called on it he switch to (avoided it) economics argument (food on the table). Which to me just shows how weak his intial statments (3D cockpit cant handle 6DOF) is imho. As for the lib stuff.. I just thought that by tossing the starving children thing out there first, it would keep him from using the "kids starving in china excuse" instead of addressing the weakness of his orginal statment! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WorldShatterer
01-24-2005, 03:48 PM
You may be right given the number of cockpits it may increase the possiblities of issues by a lot.

BTW I recognize you from Frugals forums...

Scendore

You guys have brought up a valid argument by saying that if people do not like the 6DOF issue because it would expose the limitations with the cockpits, to just not use it. I can understand that. Sadly, a lot of people would complain demanding that those issues be fixed up for all those cockpits. You might be right in your opinion that Oleg maybe does not want to do this because it will dump a new load of criticism on him and his team. I can't say I would blame him though if he decided that programming 6DOF would just be more trouble than it was worth.

Anyway, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TAGERT.
01-24-2005, 03:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WorldShatterer:
You guys have brought up a valid argument by saying that if people do not like the 6DOF issue because it would expose the limitations with the cockpits, to just not use it. I can understand that. Sadly, a lot of people would complain demanding that those issues be fixed up for all those cockpits. You might be right in your opinion that Oleg maybe does not want to do this because it will dump a new load of criticism on him and his team. I can't say I would blame him though if he decided that programming 6DOF would just be more trouble than it was worth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmmmmmmm nope.. I dont buy that excuse for one min.. In that it would not be the FIRST time that Oleg had an UNDOCUMENTED FEATURE ENABLED in the sim that he was not responsable to support.. Take the flying of AI planes for example.. Every time someone came up and whinned about the FM of an AI plane Oleg would simply say something like "You should not be flying AI planes.. the FMs are not complete". So.. the 6DOF could be enabled as a undoc feature and thus he would not have to listen to the whiners.

WorldShatterer
01-24-2005, 03:57 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>Originally posted by WorldShatterer:
Tagert,

Don't take my post too hard. Primarily I'm a lurker but I have had an opportunity to read a lot of your posts and I have enjoyed them. I simply didn't see anyhthing in the posts by Chivas to indicate that he was a bleeding heart lib type or that he was trying to appeal to them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>None taken.. Just when he made the statement that the decision was based on some aspect (3D cockpit cant handle 6DOF) and when called on it he switch to (avoided it) economics argument (food on the table). Which to me just shows how weak his intial statments (3D cockpit cant handle 6DOF) is imho. As for the lib stuff.. I just thought that by tossing the starving children thing out there first, it would keep him from using the "kids starving in china excuse" instead of addressing the weakness of his orginal statment! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

3D cockpit cant handle 6DOF

3D cockpits can handle 6DOF. The real question is whether it can handle it well. Assuming you end up with very buggy results I can see it causing he*l for the Oleg team from critics. Oleg seems to be something of a perfectionist in some ways and he doesn't want to introduce these problems even if people have the choice of activating 6DOF or not. I'm not sure, I think I would rather have a developer who erred on the side of over-perfection than one on under-perfection. There isn't a right or wrong answer. We only have opinions. I for one will accept Olegs explanation partially because I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case and also because of my own personal experience with 3D cockpit work.

As I mentioned previously, cockpits for most flight sims tend to be built like movie sets. They are built to look good from a specific camera angle. Once 6DOF is introduced it exposes limitations in cockpits that were not meant to be viewed that way. I'm only basing this idea off of my own personal experiences and you need to keep in mind that I have not worked for Oleg or done cockpits for Il-2. My cockpit work has been for other programs.

Anyway, I have posted enough to last me a year. Talk to you guys later. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WorldShatterer
01-24-2005, 04:00 PM
So.. the 6DOF could be enabled as a undoc feature and thus he would not have to listen to the whiners.

Sneaky bastard! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Don't take that the wrong way. I do mean that in the most complimentary fashion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TAGERT.
01-24-2005, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WorldShatterer:
3D cockpit cant handle 6DOF

3D cockpits can handle 6DOF. The real question is whether it can handle it well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. *well* is a relitive term.. In that diff people have diff standards. Take the current crop of 3D cockpit art.. Ask 10 people you will get 10 diff answers as to if it is done *well* Ask 10 more and you get 10 more answers. In that one mans *well* is another mans *cr@p* and another mans *gold*. Thus the only real question is if it provides you with an UNREALISTIC advantage. To be clear I mean compared to real life.. Not some advantage over some noob trying to fly without a joystick and does not have enough fingers to manipulate the views and fly. I dont care about them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WorldShatterer:
Assuming you end up with very buggy results I can see it causing he*l for the Oleg team from critics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not if added in as an undoc feature. Then he can tell them to pound sand like he tells the people that complain about the AI FM's when they fly them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WorldShatterer:
Oleg seems to be something of a perfectionist in some ways and he doesn't want to introduce these problems even if people have the choice of activating 6DOF or not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Based on the evedence presented in this forum awhile back the buggy results were not proven.. As a mater of fact when the tried to prove them, they ended up proving the pro-impliment-6DOF guys were right and that it was not buggie. So.. to this day I dont know what the real reaon is that Oleg does not want to do it.. I only know that what has been presnted thus far is bogus.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WorldShatterer:
I'm not sure, I think I would rather have a developer who erred on the side of over-perfection than one on under-perfection. There isn't a right or wrong answer. We only have opinions. I for one will accept Olegs explanation partially because I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case and also because of my own personal experience with 3D cockpit work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. Oleg tends to be straight with us.. But sometimes you can detect the smoke a mile away.. And to be clear.. Im not sure if there is smoke here or not.. Im only sure that the resons presented here by Oleg and the anti-6DOF is weak.. very very weak.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WorldShatterer:
As I mentioned previously, cockpits for most flight sims tend to be built like movie sets. They are built to look good from a specific camera angle. Once 6DOF is introduced it exposes limitations in cockpits that were not meant to be viewed that way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. but not as bad as one would think.. That is to say if your facing the center of a building phsade (just the front of the house, nothing behind it) you have to move prety far right or left to notice that there is nothing behind it. We dont need to move much here.. and thus for the most part it would not be noticeable.. Gibbages pictures of the P63 and P38 proved that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WorldShatterer:
I'm only basing this idea off of my own personal experiences and you need to keep in mind that I have not worked for Oleg or done cockpits for Il-2. My cockpit work has been for other programs.

Anyway, I have posted enough to last me a year. Talk to you guys later. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger c u

WorldShatterer
01-24-2005, 05:06 PM
Well.. *well* is a relitive term.. In that diff people have diff standards. Take the current crop of 3D cockpit art.. Ask 10 people you will get 10 diff answers as to if it is done *well* Ask 10 more and you get 10 more answers.

Totally true. It is relative. People would have different tolerances for what they would accept.

Based on the evedence presented in this forum awhile back the buggy results were not proven..

Interesting. I wasn't familiar with that.

Not if added in as an undoc feature. Then he can tell them to pound sand like he tells the people that complain about the AI FM's when they fly them.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. I'm not trying to suggest that Oleg not add this feature. If they add it I will be perfectly happy. I'm mearly suggesting in my posts that if they decide not to it will not bother me much and I will accept their opinion.

Nah, if they are happy with the idea of adding it in the program as a documented or undocumented feature I will have no probs with it at all.

marcocomparato
01-25-2005, 01:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chivas:
Its obvious that with 6DOF you would be able to see around the cockpit thru areas not modeled. This is not acceptable in most peoples minds. It would be ugly, and Oleg has other projects that need his attention to stay in business.

I have Track IR Vector and willing to wait. Its simply not worth the time and effort for Oleg to implement it properly for the IL-2's engine. I wish it were. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yup. ditto exact same feelings for me too. Its worth the wait, and the Vector adds a pretty huge improvement to 2DOF - very worth the wait for more. i have FS2004 for IFR flying and its 6DOF implimentation is sweet. that was a late plug-in as well and you can look through glass and walls with it.

wait until u see what Oleg can do with it.

BUT lets face it, those that didnt like the tearing could quite simply limit their axis (by toggling them off or on in TRackIR's software) to just X and Y and leave those of us who can stand the ability to look over our front noses when engaging and live with the horrible missing textures.

Tiger27
01-25-2005, 01:20 AM
Tagert, Im sure 6dof would be great but honestly, read back over your posts, your constantly asking for proof of this and that but I see no proof either that it will work or that it would be relativly simple to implement, as you mentioned Gibbage has shown some shots of some planes that it might be barely acceptable in, this does not mean that would be the case in all aircraft in the game, and if in any way people with TIR6dof can see outside the cockpit, although maybe not a cheat, it would certainly give a huge advantage over anyone who didnt have it and was confined to the boundaries of the cockpit.
The bottom line is Oleg has said no to implementing it in FB so I guess we'll all have to wait for a full implementation of it in BoB, Im sure that will surpass the slightly odd looking cockpits that are achieved using it in CFS3, its definately a great idea though for many types of games.

TAGERT.
01-25-2005, 02:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger27:
Tagert, Im sure 6dof would be great but honestly, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not only great.. But the best thing to happen to flight sims sense the joystick.. wrt imersion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger27:
read back over your posts, your constantly asking for proof of this and that but I see no proof either that it will work or that it would be relativly simple to implement, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger.. there is no proof eitherway.. Which is why I pressed the issue when that one guy said "obivously" as if he had some kind of proof.. and it was *obivious*. But to date more has been presented to prove it would not not provided an unfiar advantage over RL (i.e. XRAY VISSION) and at worst it would just allow you to see some less than perfect art renderings (missing brackets).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger27:
as you mentioned Gibbage has shown some shots of some planes that it might be barely acceptable in, this does not mean that would be the case in all aircraft in the game, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Barely Acceptable? That could mean two things.. Barely Acceptable in that your dont like the ugly/missing artwork? Or Barely Acceptable in that you gain some unfair advantage over RL? The first is personal.. thus moot.. The later is a wash at best.. For example.. even if you could lean far enough to look past the forward panel (ie XRAY) you wouldnt be able to see anything but the inside of the exterior 3D artwork. To *see* what Im talking about.. Take a P38 up and look left or right and note how is some angles you can SEE INTO THE WING in that the 3D exterior and 3D cockpit alinments are off a bit.. So you see.. Even without 6DOF the current 2DOF has clipping issues.. which is why I dont buy the excuse/reason that Oleg does NOT impliment it is becuse he has some kind of high standard.. If he did the P38 pit would be fixed.. And that is just one of many.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger27:
and if in any way people with TIR6dof can see outside the cockpit, although maybe not a cheat, it would certainly give a huge advantage over anyone who didnt have it and was confined to the boundaries of the cockpit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope becuase for most planes all you would see is the inside of the 3D exterior art.. Thus no advantage.. Unless you consider the ability to count wing supports an advantage? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger27:
The bottom line is Oleg has said no to implementing it in FB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. but why? Because as I have shown.. it is not due to his high standards.. in that the current 2DOF has clipping issues.. and it wouldnt be due to some kind of cheat advantage.. because all you would see is the inside of the exterior art.. or at best the top of the wing where it meets the body.. And it aint cost.. Cuz naturalpoint people do most of the work.. So at this point I just whish I knew what the real reaons is.. Cuz now of the excuses presnted thus far make any sense imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger27:
so I guess we'll all have to wait for a full implementation of it in BoB, Im sure that will surpass the slightly odd looking cockpits that are achieved using it in CFS3, its definately a great idea though for many types of games. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One thing for sure.. *IF* any sim comes out between now and BoB I wont be waiting for BoB! This is a good time for some new sim maker to get the leg up on Oleg.

VMF-214_Pappy
01-25-2005, 01:04 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>Originally posted by WorldShatterer:
Tagert,

Don't take my post too hard. Primarily I'm a lurker but I have had an opportunity to read a lot of your posts and I have enjoyed them. I simply didn't see anyhthing in the posts by Chivas to indicate that he was a bleeding heart lib type or that he was trying to appeal to them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>None taken.. Just when he made the statement that the decision was based on some aspect (3D cockpit cant handle 6DOF) and when called on it he switch to (avoided it) economics argument (food on the table). Which to me just shows how weak his intial statments (3D cockpit cant handle 6DOF) is imho. As for the lib stuff.. I just thought that by tossing the starving children thing out there first, it would keep him from using the "kids starving in china excuse" instead of addressing the weakness of his orginal statment! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Off topic here TARGET, need to chat with you if you dont mind. I am moving in a week and would like to know your intentions.