Jump to content

HansBlitz

Members
  • Content Count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 Excellent

2 Followers

About HansBlitz

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

585 profile views
  1. The why not is Devs taking time that should be spent on stuff that isn't so arcade like. There is still a lot they are working on. I hop they stay on their plan and not chase after stuff such as this.
  2. I wonder if the long contact could be some other color than white? White stands out too much. I think a darker color would be better. The attached is what I see in VR. That is just the right eye, zoomed in, and I re-sampled it up some so it would be large enough to see on a monitor. The VR is smoother looking for me than this zoomed in image.
  3. I only knew the distance in my above example due to those contacts were friendlies at the forward airfield. Most of the time you don't know and often head off toward some to then realized due to the amount of time, those were ones you wouldn't have bothered with -- due to the distance.
  4. Being able to see stuff way across the world sucks. It ruins the hunt which for me can be as rewarding as the trigger pulling part. Took off from rear field and could see every friendly taking off from the forward field over 30km way. Just because it is theoretically possible to see a contact that far, doesn't mean you should see every stinking one of them. That far away I would think on a good day maybe see a single or a couple but hell I could see 10 or so on the still on the ground and in the air around the forward airfield -- simply insane. All of those from that far away stand out for me as white and look like a flock of zeppelins. The patch that allowed beyond 10km but didn't enlarge the distant contacts seemed really good to me. Or as SeaSerpent had mentioned -- would be nice they used a smaller enlargement of those far contacts -- something between no enlargement and what the alternate view is now -- I believe I would be more ok with that over what is being used. Ones that want to see everything so that they can get in a fight more, ought to stick to dogfight furball servers or ones with ICONs on. For me flying VR, that's what the alternate visibility seems like -- might as well have ICONs on (maybe VR sees things more easily than a low res screen but I don't know about that). VR was a big plus for this -- the alternate visibility took a crap on that from what I'm experiencing. I sure wish the "expert" servers would use the expert visibility settings.
  5. "VR users finally felt like their handicap in long range spotting was diminished" I don't get the ones using VR having so much issue spotting. People I've flown with had me switch to leading as I spotted aircraft sooner than they did. I fly VR and they weren't. They did ID sooner more often than I did. Some say not having the larger LOD isn't fun. I disagree - it is fun bouncing someone who doesn't spot well.
  6. Is the option to turn off/on still having the increased distance turning off/on just the larger LOD size if set to Normal? As long as we still have increased distances for expert - guess that would have some servers that would be like having ICONs on. I dont fly those ICONs on servers anymore. Am hoping the expert servers are like the hotfix.
  7. Couldn't help that comment - just tired of oh can't play for this or that reason. We have a pretty good thing and so much complaining. No won't ever be perfect but I'm happy with it - and I dont think VR isn't the handicap some try to make it out to be. Some want to count rivets and ask for things that get too gamey. One night the guy I was flying with said - if years ago when we were teenagers, if we knew for sure we would have this flightsim now, I couldn't have stood the wait. I had agree with him.
  8. Its rumored that Donkey Kong doesn't have visibility issues.
  9. I use a Rift CV1 and in the 30 minute flight I had mentioned that I did yesterday was on Combat Box - I was in P51 and had a FW190 D9 (id'ed quite a bit later) coming toward me from my very long 1 o'clock low. Due to the time it took for us to close and the amount lower the FW190 was (many thounds of feet), it was well beyond 10k line of sight from me when I first spotted it. Pre-update it would have been beyond the 10k bubble and wouldn't have had a chance to see it until later. Based on closure time comapared to closure in a quick mission starting at 10k separation, I think it was much closer to 20k than 15k - and no I don't know for certain but we were both clipping along fairly fast and took noticeably longer to close than if we were starting 10k apart. I glancing back to it and keep thinking how long before this plane merges/passes below so I can ID and drop in behind him. It took me too many passes than it should have but I got him. I saw several other aircraft that were distant but didn't engage/merge with so I'm not willing to try to say just how far those others were (nothing to compare to) - can only say they weren't real close. I agree with some above posts that lighting and such are making a difference as it should. Just because we can see stuff farther now doesn't mean we should see every single distant contact visually every time - as well as if it was on an AWACS radar sceen, which is how it felt to me pre-patch.
  10. Sounds like there are a lot that need a trip to the eye doctor. Thought is was way way too easy to see things in the distance pre-patch. Like a flock of airliners or C5 galaxy over the target, seen from much too far away but I did spot aircraft very well before the update. I like the patch. I took about a 30 min flight earlier and it was harder but I believe I was seeing planes farther than I did pre-update and believe it shouldn't be so easy that its like having ICONs on.
  11. Jonttu may have a good point about centering. That maybe why I don't see/or notice the issue now. It might be I center up better than I first did or have learned to move within the limit. Certainly worth your looking into that centering suggestion. I use a Rift CV1 and do other headsets may have more of an issue due to scaling affecting head size??? - just dont know since the Rift is the only headset I have experience with. I know there has been discussions about scale differences between headsets but does that affect this? Discussion is a good - many calling many different things the worst just gets old
  12. I have no issue with them enlarging the restriction within the cockpit as an improvement, if they can do that but nobody should be able to stick their head thru the canopy when it is closed. Saying that head restriction is single worst thing in this lessens your point -- sounds too much like so many others that some other issue is the single worst in their view. All that is getting where it sounds all the same -- my issue is the biggest -- everyone thinks that theirs is a game breaker. Seems there are about three choices, A. attempt to get used to it. B. cross fingers that they can and do make some adjustment as improvement. C. don't play VR.
  13. People whine about got to have this or that or its not real enough -- then we have people who want to stick their head through the canopy, yea that's amazingly real. Hitting the VR limit bothers me a lot less that the weird sensation of sticking my head through the canopy. Tried that once in single player and it really bothered me when my head passed through the canopy -- ruined the whole being in the plane feeling for me -- hated it. I've done a lot better with VR and I'm glad the expert setting servers don't have heads outside their planes -- outside views off, then so should heads outside the canopy. I either have gotten to where I hit the limit less now or have gotten where I don't notice it. Over 2 years only flying with VR and I can't see going back to a screen ever for flying. Everyone is a bit different on how the VR affects them, how much, or not. I guess I"m one of the lucky ones that VR doesn't give motion sickness and such. You might try shorting sessions until you can adjust. If you can't handle VR symptoms then simply don't use it or use VR in single player where you have more control of your settings. My daughters can't do VR hardly at all or breakout in a sweat and feel ill, so it can very greatly even in a family. It's a bummer that it's not for everyone do the the affects because if a person can use it, it is fantastic.
  14. Exactly. I can't second that enough. That's my issue with all the pet wishes that people have. Maybe sound nice but all come with a cost. Everything additional takes processor cycles. Although I don't do this kind of software, I've seen where a single line of code is placed in the routine can have a big outcome on how things run, let alone what adding routines beyond what already exists could have as an impact. Everyone knows that is the reason they've said why we don't have 4 engine heavies (all the AI gun stations & current engine would be loaded down too much). Anyone that doesn't believe start a campaign first try it with sparse activity & easy then try it with dense activity and Hard -- see what more planes and ground units does to your frame rates. Higher end systems are more forgiving than low end. They are trying to get the best they can across the whole range of systems that are running Great Battles. They've already done things that have allowed me to improve the settings I'm able to run on while still adding features, so I'm happy. I hope they can still keep adding things here and there without my having to upgrade hardware very soon.
  15. plenty of bias - as in people biased towards complaining. Heck in the What's Next thread I was surprised nobody said that someone would complain would be what's next.
×
×
  • Create New...