Jump to content

19//Moach

Members
  • Content Count

    596
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

392 Excellent

2 Followers

About 19//Moach

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Langley, near Vancouver BC

Recent Profile Visitors

1037 profile views
  1. Move your mouse, or better, add a second mouse for your left hand. My setup has a trackball on the left, so I can click around cockpits in FSX and stuff - It could be also used for view control in IL2, If I didn't have TrackIR for that... I use it this way on KSP though, it works better than relying solely on the joystick hat. If you must have head tracking, you may try FaceTrackNoIR - It's free and requires nothing but a webcam. But then again, it is also only as good as your webcam setup allows it to be. Works best with very strong light against your face, but I gather your piloting may not be top notch in those same conditions...
  2. I used to have this problem some time ago - and I found that the best solution for it in the end was good old practice. Your brain eventually gets used the idea of flying while looking everywhere but forward, and once it does, it becomes second nature to tell where the nose is without having to rely on any cues besides the view picture itself. It helps if you keep the zoom control very handy, like on a joystick hat, axis, or a similar pair of controls that require but a flick of the thumb to operate without having to stop anything else. If you tunnel-sight yourself for more than a few secs at a time while turning, you may lose mental track of where the nose is. (a problem unique to flight simulation, where your body isn't necessarily fixed to your head by the usual neck arrangement) In my experience, I've decided that any additional cues, like HUD overlays and whatnot, serve mostly to increase information overload and confusion. But then again, that's me. Not necessarily the same applies to you or anyone else... But I'd advise that if you're finding yourself losing track of the nose too much, it's probably because you're tunnel-sighting yourself a bit. Keep the zoom mostly open, and close in only when you need to get details on your target. That way, you should have a far better notion of which way is forward and what's there coming rapidly to meet you. TrackIR does help - but only after it's own little learning curve. (in a day or two it becomes totally second nature) The same reasoning applies regardless of view control method - zoom out, and your awareness goes up, zoom in, and you start getting lost. With practice, you can spend more and more time zoomed in without losing the nose, but take it slow and don't push it more than necessary. If you feel like you're not completely on top of things, zoom out until you have it again.
  3. You're not alone, mate. I've spent many hours obsessing about a better way to get a burning fuel/air mix to push an axle around. Most solutions are either quite inefficient and/or work only in the magic land of theory, where all seals are perfect and design tolerances are always zero. There are many fascinating ways to build an engine - yet only some of them actually make for good engines, and only some of those are actually more efficient than something that already exists, and almost all of those are not commercially practical to build.... And in the end, just about every kind of combustion engine loses to an electrical one, as soon as a battery with energy/weight density greater than that of gasoline becomes industrially viable. (already possible in labs, I read, but some ways to go before our cars can run on it) As for your enginized air pump, here's something to feed our curiosity: https://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatWankel.htm (nerd-sniping warning)
  4. This was a problem I recall having fixed on my FSX install - there was a modded .dll for solving just that same problem (that there was too much ground friction) Afterwards, things got more realistic, such that very few planes would not start creeping forward at idle power as soon as brakes are released. BoS is well known to have an excessive amount of ground friction. It's like all tires are inflated to less than half the pressure they should take. I'm pretty sure a lot of the steering difficulties and the resulting ground loops is due to the simple fact that you need so much power to start rolling. The spitfire we have seems to taxi more or less steadily at an uncanny 30%-ish throttle position. It is almost uncontrollable if you make large power changes. Alas, these are a natural consequence of what it takes to start rolling. You gotta start it off with as little power as possible, moving the throttle up in very careful increments, observing for movement at each small step as RPM settles in. Once you "find the spot" with the throttle, you'll find taxiing gets a lot easier. But yes, this should indeed be considered a bug. IRL, just releasing brakes (or very little throttle) would suffice to start moving on any civilized surface. Any patch of ground that requires THIS much power to roll out from should have no right to call itself an airfield.
  5. The British had the practice of using what they called a "Residue Belt": Basically, they put different color tracers on the last 30 or so rounds of the ammo belts, so the pilot could tell he was running out. No need for fancy gauges, aka: something else that need repairs. This has the theoretical tradeoff that a very clever and observant enemy could also be able to tell that his shooter was running low. However, none of my targets in CloD (where residue belts are simulated) has ever mentioned noticing that I was low in this way. I suppose they had other priorities in mind at the time... I don't recall ever reading or hearing about anyone actually going "Aha! Red tracers! He's almost out of ammo! Now he'll see..." about their pursuer in real (or simulated) combat, especially not of also being in a position where it proved of any advantage to know this. Thus I reason it is safe to conclude, the brits made a sensible decision towards simplicity of design there.
  6. I think I see where the thinking goes here (maybe) One should understand that every airfoil has a specific "Angle of Zero Lift". This varies a lot depending on the airfoil's shape, particularly it's camber amount. This angle does not change with respect to airspeed. Nor does it vary under any normal (non-transonic) flight conditions. Not unless the shape of the wing is itself changed somehow, such as by way of extending flaps or by courtesy of German bullets blasting random bits off of it. What does change with speed, is how much force this airfoil generates at any given angle beyond this zero-lift point. This force is ultimately determined by the well known equation of lift. (where AoA plays as one of the many factors of Cl) In purely theoretical flight conditions, as an aircraft accelerates towards infinity (and theoretically does not explode somehow), it's lift would increase such that a smaller and smaller AoA can provide enough force to keep it level. (that is: the exact same force to counter the weight of the airplane) This reduction of AoA is asymptotic, that is: With speed increasing towards infinity, (only possible in theory, that magical place where your wings never fall off) this Level-Flight Angle approaches ever closer to our Zero-Lift Angle, yet it would never actually reach it. Like an infinitely wide bowl filling up, the water will never reach the rim as it moves towards it ever more slowly. This is an asymptote. In (still very theoretical) "practice", that airplane would become more and more sensitive to AoA changes, as the gap between the angle which produces no lift at all and that which produces enough to balance out all weight gets smaller. Note, however: The angle at which no lift is produced does not change. (Not in our perfect theoretical airspace, where the speeds of sound and light are casually waved away and told to sit quietly where they don't bother anyone.) It is the resulting lift force that changes in regard to airspeed and whatnot other factors. That is to say: Flying at the Angle-of-Zero-Lift would be analogous to multiplying lift by zero. You could fly as fast as you want and get no lift at all at that angle. Any other angle would get you some non-zero amount of lift, including even negative lift. (fancy flying upside down? ) Of course, a real plane would most likely come apart at every available seam plus several new ones way before that happens - That is what that red line in the IAS gauge is there for. And naturally, different kinds of airfoil (such as those in different kinds of airplane) have a different angle where no lift results. This is primarily why you see such difference in the AoA required for level flight at constant airspeed. Does it make any sense, or have I made things worse again?
  7. I could not tell after some trials of both "normal" and "alternate" visibility modes whether or not there is any advantage to either that makes middle-distance spotting any less unreasonably difficult. Seems it affects mainly contacts that are further away from the trouble zone, such as from 8km and further. Closer in than that, where lie our present woes, this setting doesn't appear to have any distinctively noticeable effect. Jason has also specifically mentioned that no changes have been made to spotting closer than the "10km bubble" with the introduction of the new system. Could it be that we're just now seeing a difficulty that was always there, yet now has been highlighted by the fact that an "invisible" contact had been visible before it came near enough to fall back on "how it was before". This would imply that near-distance spotting has ALWAYS been just this bad. Except that before, one would not be at all aware of this unseen contact at all before it popped right up. Thus this apparently "new" problem was really present all along, Only it was hidden behind a larger issue which made its detection too illusive to provide any meaningful practical insight, -- This is just a theory... What does have a large effect however, is the in-game Anti-Aliasing setting. With this at anything other than 4x, I have confirmed (by enlarging screenshots) that planes at 1~6km can have over 50% of their surface lost "in between" pixels. With 4X AA settings, this happens quite less severely. And that makes dogfighting somewhat manageable, if one deliberately target-fixates on a single enemy target and works the zoom carefully to avoid the contact becoming too small on the screen. Without head-tracking, this is only possible against easy AIs in single player. I haven't tried it in VR for lack of needed hardware. I've pointed out before that a software/rendering solution to this is perhaps not a practical approach. It could be more effective (and far easier) to work around the problem by having aircraft LOD meshes made progressively more bloated (3dsMax Push Modifier) as they become less detailed. That would not alter the actual proportions of the aircraft themselves much, but it would ensure that far-out LODs have enough cross-section area to avoid having their surface pixels ignored. This should be particularly effective in cases of wings viewed edge-on. Edit: I just read that it seems we'll have Deferred Rendering coming up sometime soon. Being aware of what this is and what it can do for us, I would not be surprised if it proved to have a very large effect on this issue, since it basically changes all the rules for how graphics get from sim to screen. Thus, my advice right now would be to wait and see how this turns out. It could make the problem go away. Or it could make it so much worse that its nature and cause become self-evident. Or not. Who can tell? Wait and see.
  8. That would never happen. There's a world of difference between hacking into a game for one's own personal use, or doing so in order to go out ruining the fun for a bunch of people online. Hell, even I have used countless cheats in games myself, in single player.(never had much patience with fixing a proper budget on SimCity) - But that's the thing that separates harmless fun from potential crime: The harm is not using cheats in games, but in doing it against other real players without their consent. (there are even hack-v-hack multiplayer games, though I've never really had any interest in that - but anyways, as long as all are on the same page, this should be perfectly ok) But anyone who's had the misfortune of playing against a suspected cheater knows just how massively it ruins the entire experience. The effects vary with the severity of the unfair handicap imposed on the victims, but it easily goes as far as to turn an awesome game into an entirely unpleasurable activity. If not easily avoided, such as by switching to a better kept server, this usually ends with players looking for something else to play. That is a serious problem which costs billions of dollars to the gaming industry every year. The matter is is not that there is cheating in general, But that some choose to do it against a server full of people. Analogously, one might reverse-engineer his own car to learn how it works, and this would be perfectly fine. Now, go and reverse-engineer your neighbor's car without asking him first. See how he likes it. Point is: It's wrong when it's done to other people.
  9. If I'm not mistaken, I recall Japan and S. Korea have had people jailed for use of cheating software in online games. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_online_games#Legal_measures Wikipedia specifically mentions S. Korea. I don't recall where I read that Japan has also started taking the problem just as seriously, But I do remember it making the news some time ago. In the end, I reckon it is but a matter of time for this to become more and more common throughout the world. A person ruining the game you paid for by acting in ways completely against the terms agreed upon before playing is no different than that person coming to your lawn and breaking your windows with a bat. Either case is one of destruction of property with lots of added damages for the grief inflicted with the offense itself. Online cheating has the aggravating factors that the cheaters are breaking more than one person's windows. And most grievously, developers themselves suffer more than anyone for it, since online games are known to live or die by the quality of their player communities. Indie companies have everything to lose over this, and often have little to no resources at hand for effectively combating the plague on their own. To claim that developers should be responsible for policing and deterring such offenses is to place the burden of crime-fighting (with no help from the law) upon the most suffering of its victims. It's a fallacy not unlike that of blaming women/children for being abused instead of going straight after the abuser. The developer has a much more serious claim against these villains for obstruction of business. Their grievances are similar to those of a restaurant owner who's had a person come into his business, pull down his pants, and piddle onto a table right in front of everyone during dinner. A person who does this will most certainly be put away by local police. Charges will then surely follow, for this person has caused the irreparable damage to the establishment's reputation, easily enough to cause it going bankrupt. A cheater in an online game causes basically the same harm. Once a MP game becomes known as a "haven for hackers", it's reputation is forever tainted. So why is it that the pantless diner gets put away by the fuzz, while the equally harmful online cheater gets chalked off as "oh, this stuff happens, the devs should just ban these ppl"? The only reason I can think of, is that persons in charge of making up laws are still a generation removed from the gaming scene. As soon as the first few gamer congressmen arrive in office, cheating in MP games will most certainly become a very serious crime.
  10. Actually, I did mean that as to imply "at sea level" - It feels like planes struggle far more than they should.... But that's really it, a "feeling". Just a general sensation of precariousness in flight, too subjective to quantify or measure. Yet it affects flying enough to detract seriously from combat performance.
  11. Well, there goes that theory then... At least as far as pressure counts. Yet there is still a noticeable difference in flight characteristics between summer and winter flying in the game. Assuming pressure remains constant, the temperature is then the only factor affecting atmospheric density. It still feels like planes were "tuned" as if a standard day was of -50ºC, and anything hotter detracts from their performance. At least some planes feel that way, sometimes.... This is a very elusive issue. It might even be tied up with the Infamous Wobbles. My Programmer-Sense tingles a bit here... But that might be just any programmer's natural tendency to search for the "Grand Unifying Bug", that which when isolated and fixed, shall finally cause all problems in life to disappear. We'll get it, one of these days....
  12. I do find the trails are a bit on the "too thick" side - This is a cosmetic/graphics related issue, however. I have no meaningful criticism on the technical implementation of the effect as it stands. Two things that bother me regarding how the effect looks: Thing 1: The smoke is too thick - It is not transparent enough, alpha channel is too white, call it what you will. Needs to be made perhaps 50% less opaque to look perfect. Thing 2: The smoke comes off in two neat trails right off the exhaust stacks, and remain separated so for the duration. Regardless of massive propwash spiraling and churning up the air which should actually mix it all up into one homogeneous blob as soon as no fuselage remains in the middle. - This breaks the illusion of the propeller being there and actually doing its thing. Thing 2 is much less relevant for the Me262, for obvious reasons.
  13. One major factor it seems the videos don't consider, is that of density altitude. I have noticed that in BoX, there is a major difference in aircraft performance (all models) depending on the mission season. This is a natural phenomenon, caused by temperature and pressure affecting air density, and is one which RL pilots take greatly into account before taking to the wild blue yonder. I have also noticed that most non-winter scenarios in BoX seem to feature somewhat lower-than-standard atmospheric density conditions. This results in aircraft under-performing, as they normally should in such situations. Yet this is not accounted for in the comparison videos. I do not recall any mention of trying to replicate the flying environment itself with the same attention paid to matching up aircraft-related parameters. Which then again, just makes us wonder: Why is atmospheric pressure always so low in IL2? Most mission briefings note hpa's in the 7~800 range. (22.15"hg, roughly) This is quite low, considering the ISA (International Standard Atmosphere) pressure is 1013.25 hpa. (29.92"hg) That kind of weather is more commonly associated with birds hopping near the ground and people carrying umbrellas while looking warily towards a blackening sky. With summer temps thinning the air even further, there's little wonder planes often feel to fly like bags full of bricks. There's just not enough air. In the winter, however, it is quite noticeable that one can get away with maneuvers that would leave the exact same airplane dangling precariously off the edge of stalling in hotter days. This, obviously, affects all airplanes. Yet many people doing comparisons seem to neglect this rather major factor in their experiments. I'm not saying there's nothing amiss with the FMs themselves either. One thing does not necessarily imply another. The fact that the experiment is a bit flawed does not mean it can't still stumble onto something quite revealing. It just means the experiment might benefit from being redone in more controlled conditions, in order to get a more precise set of facts to draw more accurate conclusions upon. It actually raises an even more alarming possibility: Have all airplanes in the BoX fleet been "tuned" to specs under the exact same atmospheric conditions? This would seem too obvious to have possibly been missed out. Yet it is the kind of thing that programmers do sometimes forget. (I know, I'm a programmer too, and I've learned the weirdest and most elusive bugs usually result from the stupidest reasons) In a project as complex as this, there is just too much information to keep in mind. So even the best minds may sometimes skip something that when pointed out after weeks of troubleshooting causes everyone in earshot to go "D'oh! Of Course!" Nothing can be safely ruled out as "nobody would neglect THAT" - For that is often the very reason why someone has.
  14. It might be very useful to learn what your average ping is towards the server(s) where you play. That would help determine whether or not latency is somehow connected to the severity of the issue.
  15. I do not believe the stuttering is directly bound to the new spotting system. The reason for this conclusion is that in SP, there is little to no stuttering at all. (none that I can notice, at least) It is to me clearly self-evident that stuttering is a problem which affects only multiplayer games. It therefore cannot be logically concluded that reverting to the old spotting system would have any effect whatsoever on the issue at hand. It is my opinion that the spotting changes and the onset of MP stuttering are more coincidental than in any direct cause/effect relationship. That is to say: Having come about more or less at the same time does not imply one is somehow a factor in causing the other.
×
×
  • Create New...