Jump to content

TX-Zigrat

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

75 Excellent

About TX-Zigrat

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

435 profile views
  1. The type of request you are making here is notorious for inducing nausea. What works well in trackIR when moving you head and looking at a fixed screen is very different in VR. It can't hurt to offer it as an option but for most people the snap view as currently implemented will be much better. Personally, I *thought* I would like the auto function as it's currently implemented but for me found that the manual button press was better.. this puts me "in control" and only uses the functionality when I command it. Kudos again to NobiWan for such an awesome tool!!!!
  2. This is amazing, you are a genius!! 2 questions: 1) How can I donate a little $$ to thank you for your awesome effort? 2) Is it possible to make it work with other sims as well?
  3. I loved Rise of Flight, was a day 1 buyer of FC, and will buy FC2, possibly very soon. I never knew I was a fan of WW1 aviation until ROF, and made me realize how awesome WW1 simulators are. Realistically, this is the only game in town, so I'll be a customer. That said I am kind of a little frustrated with Jason's awareness but non-committal response to the damage model issue. I think his reference to "mixed opinions" implies that it's debatable whether there is an issue with the DM. It is not debatable, there is an issue. I do not know how anyone can watch this video and think there is not a very real problem that has for me personally taken away a lot of the fun of ww1 flying and driven me over to the WW2 stuff (where there are not the same ridiculous damage model issues) IL2 Flying Circus Wing Damage - YouTube 75% of poll respondents on the "polls" part of the forum think the current DM is bad for WW1 (Most people including myself think its fine for WW2 possibly excepting incendiary modeling for 50cal). 25% of people probably believe that the moon landing was fake, .. getting 75% of people to agree on anything is hard. Its also not rocket science to fix the issue. All they need to do is go change some numbers in their structural calculations and "artificially" toughen up the weak wings of the scouts that exhibit this wing shedding behavior until it "feels right".. IE make SE5, Albatros, Halberstadt, etc roughly like the D7 is now... or at least when they take a poll of players they get a 50/50 result instead of a 75/25 result. All that said, I am very glad they are releasing FC2, will support it, and will buy it, but c'mon...
  4. Not an answer to your question, but I also got the Reverb G2 and the Quest2 and found that for me the Reverb was really not much clearer than the quest.. could be because my IPD is 59, just below that of the Reverb.. but what do you think? For me, I kept the Quest 2(agree wireless HL Alyx is awesome!!!) and sold my Reverb.. just not worth it.
  5. Awesome!!! Man you have some cojones my friend. Crazy idea, why don't you make a flight model of that plane as a "collector" plane. I'd buy it for a reasonable price! And would be a great way to AnPetrovich to validate the fundamentals of the modelling.
  6. I am very impressed with your attention on the AnPetrovich; this is a wonderful post and I am very excited to try it out. I also want to complement you on the post itself, your depth of research and explanation, including your personal experiences in aerobatic planes. The changes you describe are EXACTLY what I was hoping for. Between the recent improvements to the visualization (which I believe are more "true to life" now and also the improvements to the physiology model I am very impressed with your listening to the community to make changes that improve the simulation.. which is what we all want. Thank you! PS I know that WW2 understandably gets more attention these days but as a old ROF and new FC customer I hope some day you are given time to work on FC.. the damage model there still is terribly broken and is driving many players like myself to no longer play it, as its just not fun. I hope you can make some time to give the same attention to detail to the FC damage model!
  7. just flew on combat box with the new patch. Great job with the new visibility! Very nice improvement Believe it or not I got bounced from low 6 *more* with the new vis; could just be a small sample size and coincidence but I think you are able to spot prey at longer distances and creep up on them more effectively..
  8. new video looks amazing!! Very excited to see this in action
  9. Wow the changes described here sound really great, I am really encouraged by what what I perceive to be a recent "pivot" to better listening by the developers (on the G issue and on the spotting issue). The haze looks fantastic in my opinion, too. Great job!!
  10. Jason, I respect it is your game, your rules I am satisfied that you have read the thread and appreciate that the polls results do not necessarily reflect that 2/3 of your customers believe that the current model is an ideal solution with no additional refinement needed.
  11. To test my theory I added a poll in the "polls" section; I encourage you all to vote in it as well
  12. I am glad that the developers are soliciting input from the community, but I do have a little concern about response bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_bias) based on the phrasing of the survey questions. I am admittedly biased myself by I think that we might have very strong responses to these three questions: Q1) Do you think the addition of the G-resistance model was a big improvement for IL-2? (forecast: survey says yes) Q2) Do you think the current model is good, but could be improved by better accounting for negative G effects and the rapid "push-pull maneuver" which is oftentimes currently used as an evasive tactic? (forecast: overwhelming yes) Q3) Do you think the current model is good, but could be improved by better modeling the "functional buffer" as described by Floppy_sock on this thread? This would decrease the "rapidness" of initial GLOC onset for a "fresh" pilot but retain most of the other effects of the current model. (forecast: majority yes) The concern is that due to the phrasing of the current survey, a significant majority appear to indicate that the current model is ideal and could not use some subtle refinement.. but I think some of this survey result is due to the way in which the questions were asked...
  13. I voted for option #3. I strongly encourage you all who voted for options 1 or 2 to go read Floppy_Sock's excellent posts in the following thread: Bottom line, I think there should be an accurate G force model that represents an "average" pilot but there are two simple, easily solved issues that must be fixed. First, the current model does not represent actual average LOCINDTI. Read details in the thread linked below. You would need to add +5 seconds approximately to get near what a "normal" pilot can do IRL. The second significant flaw in the current model is related to negative G and the crazy "push-pull" high G maneuvers that are used as evasive maneuvers that would in reality cause you to blackout more quickly.
  14. Thanks again to Han. Wanted to follow up on a few points: 1) Yes spotting should be hard, hopefully most of us agree with that. Yes spotting should be hard(er) against terrain that against the sky, hopefully most agree with that as well. At least 2/3 agree that its unrealistically hard which is great consensus and I'm glad the devs are taking action. 2) Most of us have our monitor at ~ a 45 deg FOV, so a zoom up to at least 45 degrees is ABSOLUTELY realistic, and in my opinion even up to 30 degrees (the current limit) is not that unrealistic as it helps to compensate for some other challenges associated with monitor resolution. I agree we should not have 10 deg FOV zoom or similar and thankfully we do not. Bottom line, stop saying zoom is "unrealistic" (at least up to 45 deg) , you are wrong at least for non-VR setups. 3) I am not a fan of smart scaling myself, I think it distorts sense of scale and distance and is problematic. 4) I think the CounterStrike example cited above, along with Browning's post, give the clearest picture of best path forward by adjusting contrast and lighting, while leaving scaling true to life (ie 1:1). I think part of the problem is the global lighting model and the general method used for lighting in this game which does not accurately reflect the contrast ratios you will see in real life between an a/c and its environment.
×
×
  • Create New...