Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

44 Excellent

1 Follower

About ITAF_Lynx11

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

931 profile views
  1. With the awareness that it is also realistic to lose the contact while you are looking to it, especially if it goes below a cloud shadow or if flies over a similar to skin-color background or is more than 15km etc. etc.
  2. I was waiting about this kind of reply. In my country we say: "There is no worse deaf than someone who does not want to hear" but about this discussion I will like to create a new way of saying: "There is no worse blind than those who do not want to see ". Even with a 8k video someone can not agree ... but I agree with you about video compression. On the other hand I personally say that what is present on the video I posted is not SO different from real life in terms of spotting and tracking over a landscape. You can trust me or not, you can trust people that say that it is easier without specific evidence or not, is all about your choise. On my side I have some proof (with compression) of video evidence on how contacts become less-visible or disappear in relation of ground contrast plus my word as expert about this argument in real life. Last but not least, I'm here not to justify aircraft visibility in this sim, but I say that the replica we have now is closer to the correct one rather than to the arcade one... I'm also for some corrections but not on arcade revolution about aircraft visibility.
  3. Few days ago I made 2 video of what I see in RL. I was at 21000ft(7000mt) while the contact was at 15000ft(5000mt), slant range betwen us was never less than 2,5nm (4,6km). When it disappears (at 0:30 of RL spotting 2) we were around 6nm(12km) slant range. You will see how contrast makes a huge difference, how relative speed make huge differences and you can immagine if the contact was dark brown with camouflage paint. I'm not here to say that spotting in this game is perfect but I can not say that is completely wrong. The main reason of this videos are to say to people that write around in this post: "in RL spotting is easier because... bla... bla... bla..." Sorry to correct you guys but you are wrong! Spotting a military colored aircraft over the landscape is f..ing hard in RL, while spotting a civilian white aircraft is easier and can not be taken in consideration if you want to simulate a combat simulator, period. Ground contrast, aircraft dimensions, paint scheme, visibility, illumination, line of sight between moving objects make a huge difference in spotting and tracking an aircraft with a dimension of around 10x10mt gray / dark versus a bright white (like civilians) skin. So solution about this question will be a compromise. Now this compromise will be Dev's job but again, if you have in mind that spotting is easy you are wrong and, to make happy 2/3 of the community, most probably this compromise will move toward the arcade side. Obviously gaming has limits like screen resolutions, colours, contrast etc etc. so Dev's will have an hard work to find a solution. I'm of the opinion to not have the zoom-in and work on a better spotting on default FOV, but it is my personal idea (zoom-in could be a server option). I really hope everybody agree that the zoom-in is the most arcade part of the sim. With zoom-in I see players shooting at sniper ranges and spotting at satellite distances... you like it? I don't. (btw I use it because is part of the game but I don't like it). On the other hand, zoom-out is more acceptable. Having a bigger FOV (similar to RL FOV) increases overall SA specially in a furball dogfight and it actually does not help like the zoom-in with ultra far spotting and unrealistic range shoting. I hope the solution will keep this game a simulator of pro and cons of WW2 flights and not shooter game... Here the videos, please view them in fullscreen. RL contacts 1 video: RL contacts 2 video (use of camera zoom from 0:45): Fun exercise, spot the contact without knowing where it is from the beginning: Now immagine the contact dark green with camouflage...
  4. 1,5nm and 2,5nm line abreast formation. Your videos are the perfect example of what I'm saying... hard and not easy... furthermore your contacts are white and dark, we are facing mimetic skins on forest or on land (how much easier it is to spot contact over water even on IL2). Now immagine to have the same contact of your videos in dark green and lets talk about "easy" to spot them. Plus not all players know that there are specific techniques to get a tally like fix a point and search for moving objects with peripheral view. About this discussion you can see that many players use joy POV or Mouse to increase contact spotting. Having the option to fix your view it is much easier to spot a moving dot rather than having TrackIr that it is constantly moving with head micro-movements.
  5. Good morning gents. I want to add my thoughts on this topic which is the eternal discussion of all flight simulators. If we talk about simulation it means that they should simulate the pros and cons of real life. Getting a "Tally" / "Visual" contact in RL is difficult, it depends on many factors such as light, weather, background, aircraft dimentions/colours etc. I find the contacts in this Sim really well "simulated" but there is obviously the limit of resolutions, colors, contrast that each one of us has in relation of personal hardware. I dont have VR so I don't know how contacts are visible with it. On the other hand I find that the transition between FOV's creates something not realistic. First of all in RL there is no option of zoom in/out but we have a wider FOV due to our eyes anatomy. I'm of the opinion that if you want to make a realistic SIM, DEVs should add as option to lock FOV to fixed zoom (still moving the pilot head inside the cockpit) and work on contacts acquisition with a fixed FOV. The scaling of the contact in relation of FOV is something forced and needed only for making their SIM more easy and playable for all kind of players from expert to noob. How many players use zoom-in to shoot at crazy distances... but then cry for lack of realism? How many players fly at 7000mt and get contact with enemy at ground level by using zoom-in... but then cry for lack of realism? In RL above mentioned examples are impossible! Just think to shoot from 6 o'clock to a thin shape from 700mt or more or see a 9x9mt aircraft from 7000mt... impossible the first, ultra hard and contrast dependent the second. So if you want it "realistic" probably it is not always fun... so? what to do? The solution is find tactics that work, anticipate the enemy, realize that there are other players have success in getting kills and survive (hoping without cheats) and accept what you have if it similar to RL. Another eternal discussion is weapon effectiveness but I don't want to go out of topic... I did some pictures with an iPhone7 with a resolution of 4032 x 3024, nice day light and weather on a gray colored aircraft with a length of 10m and here how you see it: Now immagine the same contact over the land... have fun to find it
  6. I have the opposite. All ok with IL2 and all other games and mess with DCS that crashes to desktop all the time. I remind you also to avoid to use this huge fonts because it similar to screaming and it is not nice.
  7. Ok thank you. Btw TrackIR by selecting pause button gives back to the game the option to use Dof Axis with buttons. Unfortunately TrIR has no the dynamic deadzone (Acella filtering) that is a real plus in terms of stability and contact detection.
  8. Exactly, I don't like to lean in/out, I prefer to have it on buttons. Is there any option?
  9. No I'm not talking about zoom, I'm talking about move pilot head forward / backward that by default on game are INSERT / HOME
  10. Hi all, With Opentrack working is there any option to keep using the Z axis with buttons? With Trackir if pressing the pause button it is possible but Opentrack no even if you stop tracking. Any idea around?
  11. Hi Olega, This is amazing! Now I understand how some players have fluid and stable tracking! I have Trackir4 does it work the same way?
  12. In game there is difference in G onset rate. Spit is different than 109. Try to dive and at same speed pull full back stick. You will see a difference in GLOC between the aircraft G onset rate. I'm pretty sure there is a difference in G onset rates in all aircrafts (at least I hope, otherwise it is far from simulation...). We should have this info from Devs. Anyway the GLOC is not properly replicated since in RL if you experience gray vision you can always ease the pull and manage the symptoms. The real risk in RL is with high G onset rates where you do not pass to gray vision and you lose immediately consciousness.
  13. Sorry but it is not true. Plane type can make huge difference. how? with G onset rate. aircraft design and aerodinamics make the difference in G onset rate. also seat position and inclination can make the difference. The symptoms that result from high G exposure are dependent on the rate of onset of the acceleration. When the onset is gradual (about 0.1 G per sec.), visual symptoms precede GLOC. If the onset is rapid (1 G per second or more), GLOC can occur without visual warning. The problem I'm having with this game is that you can not manage the visual warnings. sometimes even if you have some gray vision and you stop or even unload the pull you get anyway the GLOC... this is not "realistic".
  • Create New...