I�ve played Forgotten Battles with TIR in absolute mode and it�s fantastic. The dead zone especially makes aiming much easier. However, I have a little suggestion.
The dead zone works ok when trying to shoot down a bandit, but because it seems to be axis-related it makes head movement a little clumsier. I know I can�t explain this so I drew a couple of pictures:
Here�s the dead zone as it seems to be working right now
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ailomaki/tr ... adzone.jpg
(red color indicates movement speed)
This is how I�d prefer it to work:
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ailomaki/tr ... adzone.jpg
In short I�d like the dead zone to work only near the centre position on both axis. If this is already possible and I�ve missed something, I�m sorry for your trouble.
Antti
How about a different kind of a dead zone?
Re: How about a different kind of a dead zone?
Sounds like a GREAT suggestion to me.
I'd like to see your view slide smoothly into dead center (straight forward) when you move into that dead zone, and then stay ROCK SOLID straight forward as long as you are within that circular "dead zone".
I'd like to see your view slide smoothly into dead center (straight forward) when you move into that dead zone, and then stay ROCK SOLID straight forward as long as you are within that circular "dead zone".
Re: How about a different kind of a dead zone?
Hello:
This is a good topic for discussion. Our deadzone is completely user defined, so you can have it slide in smoothly and then stay in that zone, but there is no "gravity" feature because the motion is absolute, so you can't truncate the movment.
The difference that I see in the pictures is that we work like a square, not a circle for the dead zone. We tried making it a circle in the office and no one could tell the difference between the two modes.
The best suggestion I have is to customize your motion profiles as much as possible.
I hope I am getting the point of the drawings, please feel free to correct me.
This is a good topic for discussion. Our deadzone is completely user defined, so you can have it slide in smoothly and then stay in that zone, but there is no "gravity" feature because the motion is absolute, so you can't truncate the movment.
The difference that I see in the pictures is that we work like a square, not a circle for the dead zone. We tried making it a circle in the office and no one could tell the difference between the two modes.
The best suggestion I have is to customize your motion profiles as much as possible.
I hope I am getting the point of the drawings, please feel free to correct me.
-
LLv24_Miika
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 5:00 am
Re: How about a different kind of a dead zone?
Our IL2/FB-squad 'LLv24' has a number of new happy TIR users.
After first few days experimenting there are a couple things I would like to see in the "Motion tab / TIR enhanced mode" in a future release of the software.
1) In addition to the yellow dot marker that displays the absolute position, a (maybe red) dot that would show the modified movement of the dot according to the speed curve.
2) Asymmetric curves for each axis (especially vertical Y-axis): unlinking X and Y isn't quite enough, I would need quicker response on the upper half of on Y-axis, because of a disturbing reflection of my eye-glasses. On the other hand, I don't need to see the cockpit chair at all, just meter bridge would be enough.
Miika
After first few days experimenting there are a couple things I would like to see in the "Motion tab / TIR enhanced mode" in a future release of the software.
1) In addition to the yellow dot marker that displays the absolute position, a (maybe red) dot that would show the modified movement of the dot according to the speed curve.
2) Asymmetric curves for each axis (especially vertical Y-axis): unlinking X and Y isn't quite enough, I would need quicker response on the upper half of on Y-axis, because of a disturbing reflection of my eye-glasses. On the other hand, I don't need to see the cockpit chair at all, just meter bridge would be enough.
Miika
-
9./JG54_Kirin
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 5:00 am
- Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Re: How about a different kind of a dead zone?
I like Andys suggestion very much! Personally I think it would make a great difference for me for the following reason:
I use a rather high deadzone for I can aim & shoot without pausing TrackIR.
Now if I am looking over my wing to a 3'o'clock position and I want to raise my view to 3'o'clock high the deadzone kicks in which does make the movement a bit 'choppy' or 'overshooting' as you like. With a CENTER deadzone I would have fluid movement everywhere outside the center zone (where I need the stability for firing).
The motion profile does not help since it is bound to the axis and not the absolute position!
So I also vote for a ABSOLUTE deadzone for the absolute mode instead of the AXIS deadzone we have now...
I hope I made my point clear...
Kirin
I use a rather high deadzone for I can aim & shoot without pausing TrackIR.
Now if I am looking over my wing to a 3'o'clock position and I want to raise my view to 3'o'clock high the deadzone kicks in which does make the movement a bit 'choppy' or 'overshooting' as you like. With a CENTER deadzone I would have fluid movement everywhere outside the center zone (where I need the stability for firing).
The motion profile does not help since it is bound to the axis and not the absolute position!
So I also vote for a ABSOLUTE deadzone for the absolute mode instead of the AXIS deadzone we have now...
I hope I made my point clear...
Kirin
Re: How about a different kind of a dead zone?
I think Kirin got it spot on and I guarantee that I WOULD notice the difference between the two modes. This is also very useful for beginners, because you could use a huge dead zone with my suggested method.
I�ll try to clarify a little. Right now the dead zone is the same from points 0 to 15 (or how many there were I can�t remember) on an axis. You get the same dead zone on the horizontal axis when looking through the aiming reticle or the side window. When moving your head up or down you get the same noticable dead zone at y = 1..-1 throughout the length of hte x-axis. That�s the white color in pic 1. This feels a little awkward when tracking a bandit.
The only place I want to have a dead zone in is the center of both axis (= the center point of the sim = the aiming reticule) so that my view isn�t shaking when I try to put bullets on the target.
This isn�t such a big deal, unless you want to use a big low sensitivity zone. The difference in the pictures is the fact that there�s NO dead zone to the sides in pic2. This means completely fluid head movement like for example in mouse emulation.
English isn�t my native language and this isn�t easy to explain so let�s take an example of the present system. I have two identical axis�, both have values 0 1 2 4 8 16 at points 0-5. When I�m looking forward (point 0, 0)the x speed is 0 and y speed is 0. When I look to teh left side (point 0, 4) my x speed (horizontal panning) is 8, but the vertical speed is still 0! This is because on the vertical scale I�m still inside the dead zone. This is slightly annoying.
In pic2 the system would be different. At all points at a distance of z and angle a from the center of the scale both vertical and horizontal movement speeds would be identical. There would be no dead zone around the horizontal axis when looking out of the side window.
I hope this cleared things up a little, please ask for more clarification if needed.
[ June 02, 2003, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: AndyHill ]
I�ll try to clarify a little. Right now the dead zone is the same from points 0 to 15 (or how many there were I can�t remember) on an axis. You get the same dead zone on the horizontal axis when looking through the aiming reticle or the side window. When moving your head up or down you get the same noticable dead zone at y = 1..-1 throughout the length of hte x-axis. That�s the white color in pic 1. This feels a little awkward when tracking a bandit.
The only place I want to have a dead zone in is the center of both axis (= the center point of the sim = the aiming reticule) so that my view isn�t shaking when I try to put bullets on the target.
This isn�t such a big deal, unless you want to use a big low sensitivity zone. The difference in the pictures is the fact that there�s NO dead zone to the sides in pic2. This means completely fluid head movement like for example in mouse emulation.
English isn�t my native language and this isn�t easy to explain so let�s take an example of the present system. I have two identical axis�, both have values 0 1 2 4 8 16 at points 0-5. When I�m looking forward (point 0, 0)the x speed is 0 and y speed is 0. When I look to teh left side (point 0, 4) my x speed (horizontal panning) is 8, but the vertical speed is still 0! This is because on the vertical scale I�m still inside the dead zone. This is slightly annoying.
In pic2 the system would be different. At all points at a distance of z and angle a from the center of the scale both vertical and horizontal movement speeds would be identical. There would be no dead zone around the horizontal axis when looking out of the side window.
I hope this cleared things up a little, please ask for more clarification if needed.
[ June 02, 2003, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: AndyHill ]
-
LLv24_Miika
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 5:00 am
Re: How about a different kind of a dead zone?
I finally got your point!
But I'm not sure if I felt comfortable having no vertical dead zone at all when looking to the sides and no horizontal dead zone when looking up/down respectively.
I suspect this might give very unstable view especially with multiplayer games with realistic settings: you really have to be able to keep the view steady to find enemy aircraft.
But if this could somehow be controlled with an editable curve, I do not object to having this feature as well. IMHO for a beginner to understand how the speed curves work, this isn't the #1 thing to adjust.
Miika
[ June 03, 2003, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: LLv24_Miika ]
But I'm not sure if I felt comfortable having no vertical dead zone at all when looking to the sides and no horizontal dead zone when looking up/down respectively.
I suspect this might give very unstable view especially with multiplayer games with realistic settings: you really have to be able to keep the view steady to find enemy aircraft.
But if this could somehow be controlled with an editable curve, I do not object to having this feature as well. IMHO for a beginner to understand how the speed curves work, this isn't the #1 thing to adjust.
Miika
[ June 03, 2003, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: LLv24_Miika ]
Re: How about a different kind of a dead zone?
I learned to use TIR the hard way, back in hte mouse emulation days so I can�t really say what exactly would be the best thing for beginners (now all I need to do is to learn to fly). Also, my suggestion should of course be implemented as an option, not a replacement.
However, I tend to think that getting rid of the dead zones to the sides would make it easier to track bandits. This is probably just personal preference, but unless the enemy is exactly level with you and your plane�s wing is pointing directly at him, the dead zones are only distracting. Personally I like to use the narrow FOW a lot and tracking a fast moving enemy is difficult, especially when the panning speed suddenly changes. I don�t even have a very big dead zone; I can imagine this problem would be worse for people who do.
The most important part of this suggestion is that it might be good for some people, it wouldn�t take anything away from others and it should be quite easy to implement.
Antti
However, I tend to think that getting rid of the dead zones to the sides would make it easier to track bandits. This is probably just personal preference, but unless the enemy is exactly level with you and your plane�s wing is pointing directly at him, the dead zones are only distracting. Personally I like to use the narrow FOW a lot and tracking a fast moving enemy is difficult, especially when the panning speed suddenly changes. I don�t even have a very big dead zone; I can imagine this problem would be worse for people who do.
The most important part of this suggestion is that it might be good for some people, it wouldn�t take anything away from others and it should be quite easy to implement.
Antti
-
grantikins
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 5:00 am
- Location: Spain
Re: How about a different kind of a dead zone?
To INCLUDE another adjustible centre circlular dead zone (shown visibly like the software as in the drawing to make it clear when changing) would be BRILLIANT and very noticable. Because if it did OVERLAY with the existing linear axis deadzones I would personally lower the values to zero of those outside the circular deadzone areas.
The reason why for me it is noticable now. is if I track a moving target From low to high or vice versa whilst looking out across my port or starboard wings. The head tracking slows then pauses then speeds up again. This is where zero deadzone is needed for fluid tracking movement.
This is the same for when a target object (plane) that pass low or high from the left side of my plane to the right side in my forward field of view.
This maybe more noticable for those like myself that need to set a very large 20 point deadzone just to get it to stay steady when I'm using the combine centre x and y axis deadzone (ie in front of my gun sight) when I what a rock steady view for shooting my guns.
From a user point of view If the software could show as cleary as the pictures the deadzone areas and the visual changes displayed graphically then it would simplify the understanding of the changes made for all levels of users.
The circular centre deadzone need not be a circle but a customizable square. But I do prefer the uniform circle if I were to choose.
The new circular deadzone should feature, as now, the speed settings, because they are good. As is the monumental absolute funtion we all now enjoy.
Many Thanks for the work youv' put into this
[ June 17, 2003, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: JG3_Pye ]
The reason why for me it is noticable now. is if I track a moving target From low to high or vice versa whilst looking out across my port or starboard wings. The head tracking slows then pauses then speeds up again. This is where zero deadzone is needed for fluid tracking movement.
This is the same for when a target object (plane) that pass low or high from the left side of my plane to the right side in my forward field of view.
This maybe more noticable for those like myself that need to set a very large 20 point deadzone just to get it to stay steady when I'm using the combine centre x and y axis deadzone (ie in front of my gun sight) when I what a rock steady view for shooting my guns.
From a user point of view If the software could show as cleary as the pictures the deadzone areas and the visual changes displayed graphically then it would simplify the understanding of the changes made for all levels of users.
The circular centre deadzone need not be a circle but a customizable square. But I do prefer the uniform circle if I were to choose.
The new circular deadzone should feature, as now, the speed settings, because they are good. As is the monumental absolute funtion we all now enjoy.
Many Thanks for the work youv' put into this
[ June 17, 2003, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: JG3_Pye ]
Re: How about a different kind of a dead zone?
I completely agree with Pye. I still think this would be a nice option to have.