Jump to content

Wolferl_1791

Members
  • Content Count

    194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

97 Excellent

About Wolferl_1791

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Dark side of the sun

Recent Profile Visitors

949 profile views
  1. Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Does anyone have screenshots for comparison? In VR is it better to have Alternate Visibility on?
  2. Yes, the 3.201b hotfix fixed it (although it's not in the patch notes). Tested in both career and QMB. I consider this issue closed.
  3. Object markers are still visible through the aircraft in VR. Is there some new setting I forgot to turn on? Fixed in the 3.201b hotfix.
  4. It works on my Vive, combined with the mechanical one. It's great because you can really tweak it until it feels just right. I use an IPD of 63mm, but it seems 60mm would feel perfect in game, for me.
  5. Uhmm. Does this work for anyone? I can still see markers through my plane. Is there some setting I need to enable? This is actually awesome for the Warthog. In the future can we please get this for all "toggle" commands such as airbrakes, lights, canopy etc? And can we pleaaaaaase with sugar on top get different control schemes for individual planes?
  6. Definitely an advantage, over not just "some" but "most" pilots. Of course, it depends on the theater, nation, plane and year. Probably flying a P47 would be my personal choice for staying alive and winning medals. Yes I know the differences of real life flying (I've flown gliders myself), but you don't bomb thousands of moving trucks, shoot down thousands of planes, die thousands of times without learning anything. We learn how to kill and, more importantly, what kills us. In the sim we usually find ourselves in worst odds than real pilots had to deal with. The average multiplayer match is a slaughterhouse. And even in career mode, we're flying against Terminators which never stall, never tire and (mostly) never miss. In real life, we'd be A LOT more cautious, simply because we've been jumped from behind hundreds of times in our many sim lives.
  7. Hehe, I remember wasting at least 15 minutes taxiing inch by inch so that our propellers could touch eachother. Thanks for reminding me of that.
  8. Storch Iar80 Ta152 Hs123 ... insert 5th plane here...
  9. Your English is excellent, apart from saying "buro" instead of "studio". You sound like a comrade But you're taking criticism a bit further than I did. We don't really know what 3D skills responsibilities the team porting the planes from RoF have. And if none of them have a VR set lying around, they might not notice anything wrong. Anyway, to add to the discussion, I could be wrong, but I think the game uses different models for exterior/interior views. If so, I don't mind the current detail for exterior views, where, as Prien said, it's just rivet-counting from 100m away. But from the seat, we need better detail, not just in the cockpit area. As for "polycount", indenting an edge adds 2 edges and 2 polygons (you're taking a "." section and turn it into a "V" section). Extruding a polygon turns every edge into a polygon (so it's 1 extra polygon and 3 extra edges). Since these extrusions are tiny, redoing the UV maps is not required, although it could be done. If anyone can export a plane 3d model with texture I'd be happy to try detailing it.
  10. I've noticed this from the first Flying Circus plane release. At first I thought it was a temporary problem or limited to the Spad and the DR1. But every plane since has more or less had this issue. The planes simply look flat in VR (i.e. in 3D). Looking recently at a close-up video of the Albatross D5 (Military Aviation History's Youtube Channel), I couldn't help but notice all the small details which are completely flat in the game. Due to how bump mapping works and the fact that your camera is restricted, non VR users can't realize just how weird this looks up close and personal. This has never bothered me in WW2 content, mainly because there are so many "things" in the cockpits of those planes, so they look solid enough. But WW1 planes are more basic, so I believe that every nail counts. My suggestion is for the team to up their quality, or at the very least, make the 3D models and textures moddable. I'd do it just for fun, for free, it's not really hard to extrude a polygon here and there. I've made a few screenshots detailing the issue. I've intentionally chosen the Albastross, which I guess requires the least amount of work. But any VR user can attest that the engine section of the Spad is just.... beyond words. Don't focus on texture quality, I guess that's fine enough, but on the lack of extruded details. The gun mantlets in particular use a transparency texture instead of real 3D polygons, so they look like they're made out of paper. Of course, I didn't circle everything. For example, the small nails you see everywhere would be insanely expensive (performance wise) to bump in 3D. But the gaps between the panels (I only circled the one under the rudder) would be a simple job and they'd add a whole deal of realism as well.
  11. Same here. My 3 year old computer and 3 year old Vive can still give me wow moments. Unfortunately, by the time the proper next generation of HMDs will come out, my PC will be 3+x years old. I have no doubt that my next HMD will have at least 4 times the number of pixels, the problem is "will my future PC be able to handle that"? I sincerely doubt it.
  12. Yey! Had a rough day, this made it better. Bought BoBP in like 5 seconds! Time to destroy a few me262 engines! Many thanks gentlemen.
  13. Mighty nice of you. Please sign me up for the 25% Boden.
  14. The IAR 80/81 is long overdue. Although, with the Po2 now in the air, the Fieseler Storch would be a nice counterpart, especially on the detailed tank maps
×
×
  • Create New...