POLL: View limits in IL-2 FB

[Tolwyn]

I'm a pilot and I can look 180 degrees behind me (directly 6 o'clock).

It's called:

Rotate torso.
Rotate head.
Bingo.

It's a fact of real, natural flight, folks.

You're shooting the wrong messenger.

What the PROBLEM is in IL2:FB is that G-forces are not modelled against view restrictions.

For example.

Climb into your agile plane of choice in real life.

Look 90deg to your left or right.
Pull about 6 Gs.
Try to move your head.

Ain't going to happen... EASILY, anyway.

What I *DO* agree with is the same functionality of viewing regardless of what you're using.

E.g.: POV hat and mouse should ALSO be allowed to look 6'oclock directly behind the aircraft.

Why? Becasue you can do it in real life.

Now, it's true that you're strapped in pretty tightly in these fighters, but it's still possible to do.

So, if you try that arguement crap on me, then how do you justify where you draw the line and at what angle off center? 170 degrees? 160?

Again, it's all about G forces and the lack of modelling thereof.

[Pritzl]

quote:Originally posted by Halstead York:
quote:Originally posted by Pritzl:
Quick question: how does option #2 differ from 2.0? I don't like the hyper-restricted view of IL-2 but I don't particularly enjoy Linda Blair view either, esp. the wacky Y-axis behaviour.#2 would remove 2.01's restrictions but not allow 'Linda Blair' head spinning. Note that Oleg could still choose to restrict the views in a future version of IL-2 FBMore plausible views without the ridiculous Linda Blair view? I'm sold!

Oh, and thanx for pointing out that the matter is still very much in Oleg's hands. I really hope he goes the other direction though giving padlock users and pan/snap-view users the same range of view. Level playing field is fine. Imposing further burdens on a sim by further restricting the already poor FOV is not.

[ June 18, 2003, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Pritzl ]

[Georgio]

Keep the restricted views; I'm after real life and a 180 view isn't that.

[Nodak01]

I prefer the unrestricted type views. Not for the 180 views, but because I'm in control of where my view is precisely all times, and not some magical wall freezing the view at X point. The bounce and stop effect is a real step backwards, along with the pivot up and around center, down right annoying. Zoomed in levels suffer worst.

[Pritzl]

Quick question: how does option #2 differ from 2.0? I don't like the hyper-restricted view of IL-2 but I don't particularly enjoy Linda Blair view either, esp. the wacky Y-axis behaviour.

[Hotdognz]

I want the 180 unrestricted view back and 90 view up and down.

I have never used any other version other than the 2.01b which was the last version before the restricted view TrackIR softwear came out (2.01Final), and I wont use any version that comes out with the restricted view in IL2 FB if this vote goes the other way as I dont play online and if I did I still wouldnt consider it any advantage.

There is no gain in the view other than a quick check 6 and I think that all users of IL2 FB should be given it not have it taken away.

[No1_Fox]

I have had trackir for just under a week now so still a newb to it really but what a view! no not the 360 one, generally i mean. I dabbled a tad with the dispatched drivers but downloaded the latest soon after, you cant screw your head 360 so didnt interest me really, generally 180x2 is still great isn,t it?

[Sunchaser]

When you limit options to satisfy a certain segment of your customer base your sales will be affected by those limitations, so just how many TrackIR units do you want to sell?

IL2 and IL2-FB seem to be unique in the gaming world in that the people who lobby most vocally whether right or wrong, get their way.

So, to make what some perceive to be a level online playing field which, according to Oleg Maddox, comprises 5% of the owners of IL2-FB, you remove a feature from your software that less rabid gamers would really rather have available?

The view system in FB is so restricted now that any relief is welcome, allow the user to move 180, they still cannot see through armor plating if present.

[No1_Fox]

I can't see that sales of such a product would be affected by not having a 360 view, its a fine product and only when as good a product is available and cheaper then it would make a difference.
If armour plating is restricting the view with 2x180 surely a 360 view will make no difference, the armour plating will still be there?
2x180 is good enough for me and a kick of the rudder gives you extra 10 degrees anyway.

[ June 19, 2003, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: No1_Fox ]

[Charvel]

Leave the full 180 view since it is the most realistic, I say. People who say you can't look directly behind must have serious back problems and not able to turn their torso like most people can.

I would seriously applaud limiting the verticle view to just ~90 degrees however as 1) it is disconcerting the way it tracks when looking more than 90 deg. and 2) It doesn't seem medically feasible to bend your head backwards any more than that anyway.

As for making things even for online play, we'll also have to call Nvidia/ATI to make sure their drivers only play FB in 800x600x16 at a constant FPS as one who could afford a GFFX/9700 has too much of an advantage. Oh, and no more 4 or 5 speaker surround sound in online games either please, most people only have 2 speakers! Hearing someone approach on your six might be considered too much of an advantage!

Again, if Oleg wants view limitations than by all means give him the ability to switch it on, otherwise all of the arguments against don't really amount to much under the light of close scrutiny do they?