HR_Zunzun

I am not worry at all. It was only an addendum to the limitations. The main point still stands.

I think you are misundestanding that looking behind your back is not the same as being able to do a meaningfull scan of your six o´clock. I have not doubt that you can see at your six o´clock in reality (development of buble canopy is one proof). I can do it with my VR but in doing it I have found the limits of my periferal vision. And that is the key of part of this discussion. It is very clear in the manual of VVS I posted. It is quite clear in someone´s post about f-16 nowdays (I fighter with a magnificient buble canopy). The key is acuity. When looking behind (at your 6) you don´t use the 10º of your central vision (even while moving your eyes balls in your sockets). You have to use peripheral vision. I put an example you can esily do at home to test it (looking at some text on your back). It is undeniable. You can see easily a contact a your 6 if is close enough but you can´t see it easily if is farther away because is blurry. In game, with trackir or hat switch, you keep on using your 10º central vision to look at your monitor while your avatar pilot is "looking" behind. You can keep that position almost indefinitively without any phisical strain. Reality is diferent. looking at your 6 is tiring and is not so clear. So, one point is that there is ample proof that trackir and hat switch give abilities that doesn´t exist in real life and give a boost into SA. The other point is whether this could be simulated in pc computers. Not easily but not impossible. Is not about limiting the angle of vision but limiting the clarity of vision depending of the angle. The natural way is VR (I think that will be the norm in the future). On a monitor, One way would be some technique that makes the 20º cone both sides of your 6 o´clock a bit blurry (makes you able to see big contacts on your six o´clock but not the small ones that are a good distance away). In theory is possible but implementing it is another story. You can come across may unexpected problems.

Well, this picture pretty much proves my point. The guy in the picture is straining his torso and his neck muscles. He is also straining his eye ball muscles and you can see that where he is looking with his left eye is not reaching with the right one because is blocked by his nose. Try to keep this posture for a long time compare to turning only your neck a few degrees in your regular trackir or not even that in a hat switch. Try to do a meaninful scan of your six o´clock sky while keeping this picture and pick up a tiny dot (a contact) while looking like that. It is imposible. If you read on the linked I posted, it is explained very well. That is why in the VVS (real people in ww2 dealing with this problem) considered the 20º (on each side) of your six o´clock as a blind spot, and the further 30º only visible with a lot of effort of your body muscles (torso, neck and eye balls). You can do an experiment very easy. Get a text that you can read more or less easy in front of you (like this forum text) and seat as far as you can read it easily. Then turn your chair around 180 degrees and then try to read it again while looking at your back (simulating the same position as you were strap like the guy in the picture). You can easy tell there is a world size diference (you can´t read the text easily or at all). Looking behind in your car for parking is not the same as searching for a contact in a plane cockpit while holding your stick, throtle and rudder in position. This is the same reason while companys are expending a lot of money on VR to develop a technique called foveated rendering. They know that you have much less visual acuity outside of your central 10º vision so it is a posible to degrade the quality of the image outside of that cone without you noticing (and this lower gpu power needed a lot). It is irrelevant (for my point) whether it is, currently, possible or not to simulate this in the sim. This difference exists and it effects the virtual combat compared to reality (because it gives players a huge boost in SA). I know it and accept it. What I do not accept it is the notion that looking straight at your monitor is the same as looking behind your back. If you take the time to read the article I posted, it basically explain those concepts and limitations and why flying formation was so crucial for maintaing good SA.

For those of you who can speak spanish (if not prob google translator is your friend) read this article. Is a translation from a ww2 vvs manual about fighter tactics and address the limitation of pilot view in the cockpit. http://www.rkka.es/Manuales/003_manuales_tacticas/002_manual_tacticas_caza/002_busqueda_enemigo.htm That shows why mouse/hat switch/tir is quite unrealistic compared to real life. Looking behind is not just about being physically able to look at your six but what part of your vision you use when doing it and the strain you impose in your body and eye balls in order to achieve it. I think the discussion is not about whether it is physically possible to look behind while sitting in a real cockpit but the degree of visual acuity you get and the effort it takes. In trackir/switch hat, you are using your central fovea to look at your six (you look almost straight at your monitor) while, in real life, you have to use your peripheral vision. Also, while in the sim you can fly looking at your six quite comfortably for a long time (many minutes if you wish), in real life you are limited to just a few seconds at a time because of strain to your body/eye balls muscles. Even the video that showed how a VR user was looking to his six is a bit misleading as, by watching it, you are looking straight at your monitor while the VR user of the video was probably using his/her peripheral vision (a bit of apples to oranges experience comparison). The problem, as often, is how to translate this limitations to the sim in a meaningful way. With the current technology, probably very difficult task without getting into new problems. The VR is probably the best approximation that we have at the moment but, obviously not something you can impose to everyone. So, in my opinion, it is true that unrestricted vision as we have now makes combat less realistic (because enhances SA) but I don't see any easy solution to fix it unless everyone makes the jump to VR (and even with that, the system could be abused).

Do not forget Alexander Pokryshkin. He achieved almost the same amount of kills with the P-39. Many other Kobra pilots were highly suscesfull too.

Without going into further detail (so not affirming/dennying anything) of those 249 hits for a total of 6 kills, do we know how many of the hits were made by the mg 17? Do we know how many of those 6 kills were actually "over kills"? Can we reliably rule out "net code" influence? There are many factors that can make something plausible or logic looks like an apparent DM problem.

It is this DM problem consistent? I only see one video of one sortie. You may be right, but without some statistic consistency the explanation could lie elsewhere. For instance, with the trees alone could just be a matter of very good luck. The lagg enter the tree area with almost 90º bank angle, so could have just skimmed the tree (the one that moves) with the belly. Not saying is not a DM problem but without more consistency (same behaviour in different events with the same plane and not with others) my explanation could be plausible. For the rest, with the multiple impacts "anomaly", is the same. I have experienced that many times when shooting at other plane models. Other times, they go down in a very short burst.

I was referring to the fact that the sequential actions described in the text aren´t very disimilar to other done by other fighters in similar circumstances. If you are cruising with your drop tank selected, with your gunsight lamp off, and your gun heater off, then you have to do the same. Could be more or less difficult to access the different swichtes, levers and knobs, but the actions would be pretty much the same (except the double engines). Obviously, in german fighters is going to be easier to get into combat settings. But not by a huge marging. In any case, any fighter being bounced, while cruising in economical settings and with drop tanks in use, is going te be in a pickle. That regardless of the degree of automatism implanted.

Any other fighter that uses external tank would be subjected to a similar amount of procedures.

I don´t have a clue whether this is correct or not. Most likely will need tunning. What I think (my feeling), is that is more correct than previous implementation.

Agree. I think a reason for that could also because most of us use short stick (so more sensitive to input) and the lack of sensorial feedback (like stiffiness of the stick or "seat of you pants" feeling of building Gs). The way it is means we have to develop a new muscle memory for the new conditions.

This vid is very old and has been posted dozens of times by others before you. I didn´t have to watch it again to know what you were trying to convey.

My bad. I miss the starting altitude. Now makes more sense. Regarding the boost control failure, it says only affected the speed test (didn't mention the climb test). In any case, if anything , I understand would be underestimating the results (gave less boost). Wouldn't it? Not that it would change much considering how it was unable to maintain boost as getting higher.

Tempest climb rate in this chart seems low compared to this test. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tp.html At 9lbs and 11400lbs of take off weight it was climbing at 4380ft/min (22.25m/sec). In the game (in this chart) it does the same, 22m\sec, while lighter (half fuel) and on 11lbs.

A few HR_ will be there too. Both days.