Jump to content

ACG_Kriechbaum

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

61 Excellent

About ACG_Kriechbaum

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

305 profile views
  1. Limiting lives of a player is pointless, when you already limit the planes per player. Because with infinite lives, you keep players in the game vs. having them leave the server. People on this server like to fly together, so "sending some of them home from the playing ground" while the rest of their friends are still flying can make the entire group change the server.
  2. So when you fly 1h, you are looking forward 3min. πŸ˜„ I assume you are looking forward during take off and landing, so that makes 2min of forward looking during a 1h mission. Sounds funny.
  3. Yes, why not. Create your thread about that. Not impossible to do. Simply have some actions block other actions. For instance changing flaps/elevator setting in 109 would block your ability to change throttle. If you do it simultanously, throttle will change after you release flaps button. Simple. Its amazing how many people find all sorts of things "impossible". πŸ˜„ If these people lived in 1880, they would call cars impossible, in 1900 they would call planes impossible. In 1930 they would call "landing on the moon" impossible. In 1995 they would call VR impossible. List goes on. This is not about fairness, its about limiting movement of POV for increased immersion. "IMPOSSIBLE" you say? ...yeah, totally impossible. How come its possible to limit the POV to the inside of the cockpit? Must be a miracle. πŸ™‚ How come when you open the canopy, you suddenly have increased limits of camera position? Also a miracle. Other games have different limits to rearward view. But here in IL2? Impossible! When you implement limits, nobody can go over those limits. How hard to grasp is that? Not with VR, not with TIR, not with snap views.
  4. At this point i have to assume you are trolling Have fun.
  5. Its a difference when you don't see the plane behind you because your view is obstructed. Because you see less when you cannot turn 180 degrees and put your point of view 1 cm away from the canopy glass in any direction. You will agree that it is a huge difference in a fight to see a plane vs. not to see it. It is not going to be easy to do it when the game restricts your freedom of movement. Same as you cannot move your camera out of the cockpit unless your canopy is open, the game is determining your freedom of movement according to certain variables. Variables can be changed. So you are wrong. It is the opposite of being right. You are stating that it is "always going to be easy". How is it "always" possible when the game restricts it. You could have also said: "Its always possible to pull 9G". Guess what, not when the game says you can't! Look, nobody says "you cannot see being you in a real plane". But you cannot see dead six in a real fighter cockpit. Now look at this screenshot. That is not even the maximum you could achieve with the current freedom of movement. Also, look at this video, if you still don't see the difference between what we have in the game vs. what people want regarding freedom of camera movement (from the 1:40 mark on he tries to look back) :
  6. It is more amazing that you are still around, although you are not interested in changing anything about the view. BTW, this guy from your picture does look more UP, not straight back along the axis of the fuselage. If you cannot see the details, no wonder that you cannot grasp what people are actually talking about here. Again, since you struggle to understand: Can you turn around in your fighter cockpit and look straight back from above your instrument panel? Can you look out of your left rearward window with your head turned right? Can you lift your eyes 1 cm below the canopy and look over your headrest? And while doing that, you think you would still be able to actually control the airplane? You are so baffled about why people want a more realistic camera movement, you might as well be baffled by people wanting a realistic flight or damage model. "Why the heck does everybody want realism in this simulation? They must be insane!"
  7. This is the gamer in you speaking. In the initial post it was stated, that this topic doesn't adress the gamers, but the simmers. Otherwise you could just remove the entire cockpit for everybody, it would be fair. So why have a cockpit, right? What's the point? Well here comes the point : More immersion, it's what simulations are trying to bring to the customers. Any feature in the game that provides a more realistic air combat experience is there for a reason. There are constant changes towards that goal for a reason, too. Regarding the edge-blur: You already know that people would hate it, before you even know how that could or would look like. I can imagine you are also saying that the g-force blur or the injury blur are features "people would hate". Maybe what you really mean is "gamers would hate it." Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with being more on the arcade- side of things, it's just not the topic for those people.
  8. I mentioned, it would also be fairer. I did not say making it fairer is the purpose of my idea. It would be a nice side effect. The purpose of it all would be to make the game more realistic. Such changes do not need to be too pronounced either. Its all about little adjustments till its about right. At the moment i can turn my virtual head right and still look out of my planes left rearward window πŸ˜„ The videos of real pilots looking back are supporting the initial idea to limit the rearward view, because those guys cannot see over the headrest parallel the longitudinal axis of their plane nor can they turn 180Β° to look back .They look up, not straight back. And again, these modern cockpits are made wider as a consequence of having bad rearward view, if you are boxed in like in a 109 or spit, etc. It would help to sit down in some fighter planes, if you have the chance, just to check. I think a nice subtle blur on the monitors edge when you turn the head to the maximum would be a nice effect, like when only one of your eyes can still see backwards and you cannot see as sharp due to peripherical view.
  9. Exactly. I think some people here did not read my first post. I am not addressing any of the more gamer - type people here. Their views on any topic that tries to discuss the implementation of another feature for the sake of more realism is clear from the beginning. They drift into discussing "fair, not fair, whining VR users, advantage, disadvantage" and fail to see that the features that make this game so enjoyable are based on how it would be in reality. Some people argue : "You don't need to add realism feature XYZ because you sit on a chair at home" so, because you are not really flying a plane, don't even try to make it as realistic as POSSIBLE, right? I remember the same arguments about the blacking out. The point is not to deliberately put anybody at a disadvantage and others not. The point is to simulate air combat. For this we already have very accurate planes with accurate specifications. We have a very impressive flight model, damage model. Now we even have physiology of the pilot regarding g-forces. All of these features are puzzle parts that make this game what it is. This here would just add to the whole. The problem : You cannot put your point of view outside of where your virtual head would be. Your head has a shape, is attached to your body and thus can logically only move inside those boundaries. At the moment you move your point of view within the boundaries of the cockpit (VR and TIR). Solution : Give the point of view a range of motion within the boundaries of the virtual head. Of course it could be implemented as an option, so the gamers can still enjoy the more arcade style of playing.
  10. Feel free not to follow topics you do not wish to see. πŸ˜‰ I don't know what car you are driving, but i doubt it will be as cramped as a 109 or spit, etc. + try to look back with both hands on the wheel. Nobody says, it should be impossible to look back. All I say is that it should be limited. You actually said that you like it better in DLC, so we ask for the same thing more or less. Also, it could be modeled according to the space the respective cockpits offer. The one you showed in the picture is a modern plane with a way larger cockpit than a ww2-fighter, which is also a result of lessons learned before. Does the current camera movement allow for better rearward view? Yes. Is it realistic? No. Especially the lifting out of the seat - thing in combination with the non - existent boundaries if a human head. I want to see a guy in a real 109 looking over the headrest armor. πŸ˜ƒ
  11. To all the guys giving tips how to check six by sitting on a turning seat etc. , well facepalm πŸ˜… you are literally giving tips on how to get an advantage by killing immersion. The main point is not so much to make it fair for VR-players. It just would be a nice side effect. I was aware that a lot of people look at this from the gamers perspective, who will always choose performance over realism. Transparent cockpit would totally make it easier for you to check six btw. The thing is, as many fully understand, you cannot check six in a fighter plane of ww2 with ease. Try to look back without turning your shoulders much, and then try to identify a small spot as an enemy plane at the most rearward spot you can see. In real life, not having somebody check your six for you was a real risk. In il2 you can fly your little camera drone around your cockpit. Like your neck is a long tube and your head is the size of an apple. πŸ˜ƒ Just as the new blackouts change the way dogfights look like, this would also change the way dogfights would look like. Cool for simmer, but maybe not cool for gamers.
  12. Hi folks, This post goes to the people that are more sim interested and less of a gamer. It might also be of interest to the VR-guys among you. (If you are the typical gamer, this thread is probably not interesting to you). Rearward view from fighters : In the current game, you can turn around like a robot and fly any maneuver comfortably with your neck turned around 180 degrees. A human pilot would encounter some rather unpleasant obstacles doing that, mainly the straps, the limitations of a neck, the G-forces while having the head turned all the way back. I think it would make sense to put some kind of more oe less smooth braking effect on the heads movement when turning around and to slightly blur the respective edge of the screen when it points to the rear to imitate the usual peripheral view you get when you look all the way back. Would be also fairer towards VR - guys. Thoughts?
  13. It's interesting to see that anybody suggesting a bit more work for the map is stomped into the ground. Argument No. 1 being "the devs have no time". Yeah, it's their job, they don't have time for their job? Of course they do. They have time for a Normandy map but the Rhineland map is still a pretty repetitive WIP-wasteland. πŸ˜ƒ But new planes and titles bring money as opposed to content we already paid for. πŸ˜πŸ‘
  14. How do you know how many people are "the last few"? How do you know how many people would join servers, would there be an easy option to have the support of a group? Throuout the discussion your argument is like walking in the forrest and saying: "There is no need to build rails here, because i cannot see any trains in this forrest. Walking works just fine for me!" πŸ˜„ The random unorganized flying is way more unrealistic than a few noobs in your wing. Noobs existed in real air combat, too. But they didn't respawn after death with their knowledge gained from the last sortie. People learn, people adapt. They do so faster, when you promote the means to do so. If the 3rd party option would work so well, you would see way bigger formations flying missions vs. random furballs with few people collecting a lot of kills, 3 people that actually attack ground targets and 30 people with no contribution to the objective of the map. That is how the reality of multiplayer looks like at the moment.
  15. Don't get me wrong, everybody gets it, you personally and a handful of your friends don't need it. Fair enough. Thank you for your opinion. I don't want to convince you and your friends. I am merely discussing an idea with people and so far there is quite some people who like the idea. 😊 Thank you for your input. 😘
×
×
  • Create New...