Jump to content
Sim

Pilot body in the cockpit

Pilot Body  

310 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like to have a pilot body in the cockpit?

    • Yes
      43
    • Yes, as an optional feature (can be toggled on or off)
      195
    • No
      72


Recommended Posts

I was intrigued by the Jason's comment related to Oculus Rift requirements of having a pilots body in the cockpit for the immersion factor:
 

Our customers also do not want to necessarily see a human body in our cockpits

 

.. and would like to see the actual numbers behind this feature. Would you like this option to be implemented? When casting your vote - imagine that there will be no technical or usability issues with this implementation (I am sure the devs are creative and can figure out a working solution for instrument obstruction or "invisible neck" issue).

 

My personal vote goes to a strong "Yes", not only because I think this is an important VR feature, but a must for overall immersion (for example, a detailed first person bailout and parachute view can then be implemented).

 

I am also attaching a couple of images from DCS and War Thunder showing a working pilot body feature.

 

post-412-0-70815800-1422538799_thumb.jpg

post-412-0-67963400-1422539109_thumb.jpg

post-412-0-16401800-1422539027_thumb.jpg

post-412-0-38652000-1422539250_thumb.jpg

Edited by Sim
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Having rendered hands and legs that obstruct instruments and can't be moved away adds nothing to immersion, realism or effectiveness. I know what my hands are doing anyway, and they are not ones in v-cockpit.

Maybe if we get proper VR (sensing whole pilots body and modelling it as v-body, not head mounted display trying to sell itself as VR - geez, I remember when Wolfenstein 3d was called a VR, too :rolleyes: ). Maybe then. 

Edited by Trupobaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a "nice to have" feature for me, as long as it is toggable. I really like how it is implemented in DCS World with the toggable pilot body. For actual flying I switch the pilot body off, but for screenshots and videos I leave the pilot body activated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see skinnable pilots...

at least the old 1946 feature where you can use yer Photo to skin the pilot face

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it was and it added an extra level of immersion... I will never forget when my granddaughter was watching me fly one day and I went external and zoomed in and she excitedly said "That's you grandpa!!" For filming too it is a great feature to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a "nice to have" feature for me, as long as it is toggable. I really like how it is implemented in DCS World with the toggable pilot body. For actual flying I switch the pilot body off, but for screenshots and videos I leave the pilot body activated. 

I think it could be nice to have this feature as well.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, not interested, I'd rather see other features, new planes etc. Nice idea but I think it's a waste of resource that could better used in other areas. Cheers

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if done nicely (ie basic control interactions like operating radiators, canopy or landing gear, trigger presses, body moves together with head tracker, and somehow didn't obstruct half the universe).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saying that currently it's possible to adjust throttle and trim at the same time while holding the stick, which would be a three-hand operation in a real WWII airplane. As long as anthropomorphic controls are not implemented, a pilot body could be only a puppet randomly scratching his nose.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am for it if it is optional, if not . NO WAY . I hate this feature in DCS because it is a minor movement and you see only your body. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had replied once about this already - this is how I would do it:

 

 

I had once dealt with this same issue while making an addon for the Orbiter space simulator, and I actually found a practical solution for the "back of your own head" problem - well, it was practical enough for myself anyways...

 

this is the cockpit here, see:

 

vsbFZ.jpgturbine_start.jpg

 

 

as you can see - there's two pilots in there... and by clicking on each it is possible to take his place during flight - this posed a curious problem on how to manage the "bodies" across such a transition

 

 

so here's what I did:

 

 

 - first, your "own" body had only the legs and lower torso modelled - the view adjustment bounds were limited to a natural reach "box" more or less - and it could not be pivoted down past some 70° or something.. 

 

 - since you couldn't turn the view to look at the area right under where your head would be, I then modelled the armless torso of the pilot leaning substantially farther back than the seat would actually recline - such that looking down had you staring at "your" stomach, much like you'll see if you try that yourself on your PC chair (or cockpit) right now

 

 - the body model was not animated at all - the rudder pedals were not even actually modelled, since they'd be hidden in darkness, a trick I used throughout that entire cockpit to make my own life much easier -- the dark shaded areas have actually no mesh, they're just left open with a full-black "bathtub" behind - your brain interprets this as "shadow" and automatically fills in the blanks, giving the illusion of solid shapes inferred by the visible contours (nice trick, eh?)

 

 - I found that having legs and (adapted) torso, but not arms, provided the best compromise between visibility and the feeling of actually being there (which a "ghost pit" lacks very greatly)... the side-stick on the right side was actually animated, as were the throttles and switches - but, having no visible hands contextually "allows" them being anywhere at any time, as required to operate the various controls - thus, creating all those complex animations became unnecessary

 

 - this worked well for ONE pilot... but since there are two, and you can switch places, I had to take it another step further and alternate the visibility of two sets of pilot models, one for each side, with the man sitting next to you fully modelled and "yourself" only partially -- so whenever you clicked on the other guy, or hit TAB, it would reposition the viewpoint and at the same time, change the models for the pilots

 

 

that was done with very little coding really, in good old C++, and the code is up on github for anyone who cares to read it 

 

 

anyways - that was how I landed on what I consider the best practical solution to the "ghost cockpit" debate... indeed, having a full body like in the ArmA series poses many problems, (which in ArmA were dealt with by restricting trackIR movement somewhat)

 

but I do believe it can be managed, though it is not exclusively a modeling task - as it requires camera logic that considers the natural limits of how a head can and cannot move inside a cockpit, and how one cannot, no matter how hard he tries, look at his own neck without using a mirror

 
Edited by 19//Moach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted NO as I think it's much more important to have crew on ships first. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I voted NO as I think it's much more important to have crew on ships first. 

 

And the one feature rule out the other? We do not have anything to say considering the priorities of the dev team, as I understand it development for future pacific and finishing Kuban is priority. In my point of view maybe crew can be a mod for community to make. They would be static anyway. Other than that I would rather have crew on ship too first, and more objects, while we at it set more parameters into the AAA aiming, as for now they are far too accurate.

But that is not what we talk about here, I will not use own body in cockpit , I find it not more immersive than without. But I do not mind other to have it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the one feature rule out the other? 

No. I simply stated that crew on ships has higher priority for me than seeing my limbs in the cockpit.

Yesterday I attacked some ghost ships on the Kuban map, strafed them and hit them, and the unmanned MG stations continued firing at me after I (should have) killed their invisible crew.

Once we get to the Pacific, crew on ships will be a must. You won't be able to land on a carrier without a signalling officer. I'm not against (optional) limbs in the cockpit, but I'm very much for populated decks. So simple as that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that does not rule out having bodies in the cockpit - you have answered "no" due to completely external reasons which have nothing to do with the merits of this concept in itself...

 

it would be more just if you had made your answer thinking of the question as:  "if any other priorities remain unaffected, would you want it or not?" 

 

 

 

for that is really the question this thread is all about -- answering "no" because you'd want something else before it is simply to add noise to muddy up the poll results, as that answer does not contribute to measuring the community's desire for this feature in any valid way.  

 

 

so imagine that ship crews (or whatever features you see as priority) are already added, THEN answer the poll

 

developers are the ones to set priorities, we must not presume to tell them how to do their job, or try to force one way or another by manipulating unrelated polls....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moach, with all my humble respect, I don't believe that the condition "if any other priorities remain unaffected" can ever be true when it comes to any type of development where resources have to be clearly prioritized. For the same reason I'm uneasy with the Yes/No type of "binary" polls. They don't help the developers either.

 

If the question were "how important it is for you; answer with 1 to 10", I would have voted "2", since pilot body in the cockpit is a very low-priority thing for me. As 2/10 was not a selectable option, I transformed it to "No". So you can take my "No" as "No".  :cool: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I (should have) killed their invisible crew.

 

I manage to silence the gunners on a submarine with a HS 129 in qmb so I think it is modelled anyway. I think crew is a great idea, far better than own body in pit. But I am not against it as a option for those wanting them.

I might have destroyed the gun and not killed the crew, I honestly do not know. But when you shoot against a land based AA you do not kill them either, they run away and it will not silence until you destroy the AA.  

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, I meant what I said from a statistics point of view

 

I reckon that the point of the poll is to determine the desire for such a feature among the community (as opposed to a less obstructed ghost-cockpit)

 

in that case, it should be considered without regard for what priority such a feature would be given, as the question itself relates to whether or not it would be desirable to have this.

 

any feedback which accounts for other factors, besides the merits of the thing being proposed, inserts numerical noise into the tally, and makes for less than ideal results (such as, you'd have more negative answers than the idea itself would have warranted, due to factors that are not actually related to it)

 

 

the question was never that of "what priority should this be given" - so to account for that in reply makes for sub-optimal statistics

 

 

in other words, its like answering "I like Diet Coke better than Zero" when questioned whether you like Coke better than Pepsi.... it's just not an answer for the same question,  and if many ppl go about doing this, it clouds up the results of the poll

 

 

so let us not confuse things - this is an opinion poll, not a petition -- answering "yes" does not mean putting pressure for it to be done sooner or the other way around. 

Edited by 19//Moach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you want pilot body?

Do you want free beer?

 

Asking such questions doesn't make sense, everybody wants a pilot body, a free beer, or eternal life.

 

What makes sense is asking how much you want them, and of what cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure if you noticed but game is developing thanks to people who keep buying expansions, premium planes etc. Pilot body would be one of upgrades this game gets. Nothings is free, we keep paying for this game and this is one of idea that would be nice to have. It's not free. At best free is new plane in war thunder if you did not even spend 1$ there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said NO - but if it's getting implemented so I wish to be able to put my sunglasses on and light up my cigar - that's a lot of immersion.

 

With the huge resources the dev team already has, I would say "a piece of cake"... and of course we don't care about frame drops, right?

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Cheerio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Asking such questions doesn't make sense, everybody wants a pilot body, a free beer, or eternal life.

Asking such quesions makes definitely sense, as it gives the producer and the developers an idea, what we players would like to have introduced in game. If and when such things will come is, anyway, the decision of producer and developers, if they want it themselves and if they have the time and recources to develop what people would like to have in the game. It is not a question, I would like this more than that, but yes I would like to have this and maybe even that, and the developers see, what they want to introduce and what they can introduce, completely their decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My single point is that it's more informative for the developers if we qualify our statements. See #22 above. It's a common (and well-established) practice in professional marketing polls to ask for attitudes, not for simple yes/nos. A simple 'yes" can both mean 'I cannot live without it' and 'I'm not against it, but have other priorities'. 

What I'm for is the type of poll like this: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/1193-how-much-would-you-see-po-2-bos/

Cheers

Edited by sniperton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moach, after reading over your post I agonised for a while about how to answer, what I would have liked to say was yes and make it toggle-able, but in the end I said no, for two reasons.

 

No, because I'm not sure how you could accurately model a pilot body without its movements being either too distracting or too static. As has been pointed out, in a/c before the days of HOTAS changing throttle, trim and holding the stick would need several hands. With my own setup the most things I can think of doing simultaneously is seven - holding the stick and changing trim, radiators, flaps, RPM and throttle and changing supercharger gears. With a bit of a reach I could drop the gear and open the canopy and bomb doors as well, and there's ten simultaneous operations that a WWII pilot would have only had two hands to do. If cowl flaps or oil radiators are present there's eleven.

 

How do you animate that?

Is your pilot going to reach for each switch and control when pressed, bearing in mind that each cockpit is different and that would require a fair bit of work?

If so, what happens if you hit something else while the animation is still going, is there a smooth transition or an abrupt jump? What about the time delay it would take to move your hand from the throttle to the trim wheel to move it, will that be modelled or will it be instantaneous as now but with the delay in animation?

What happens if you hit multiple things at once, will your pilot start wildly flailing his arms around partially hitting all but actually hitting none if his movements can't catch up with yours quickly enough?

 

Could be amusing the first time, but obnoxious and very distracting at a time when concentration is required.

 

Ergonomics play a role in cockpit design, can't remember the a/c in question but I think it was the LaGG and La-5 which was criticised for needing several distinct movements of the left hand to increase speed as all the controls weren't within easy reach.

We can sidestep that with our own flight stick setups but it would become an issue if you could see the hands moving each part in the cockpit.

 

Alternatively, if there is no effort made to reach for anything other than stick and throttle it will be an immersion killer and all it will do is just block your view of the gauges and dials.

 

So there are some of the issues as I see them.

 

I also don't believe the devs should put time into this when there are other things I'd rather see them do. Small things like crew on the ground, or better visual damage rather than badly-rendered black splashes clearly sitting on the surface of the skin, or solving some of the silly issues with how fuel gauges display in some aircraft. Or bigger things like fixing engine limits or populating the map with more units, or even core tasks on the roadmap like finishing the Kuban plane set, adding more to it or getting on with new theatres.

 

Only my input and opinion, but I found myself having to vote no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh shoot, I voted but am not VR. I never use the pilot bodies, they just block instruments and take valuable dev time =) IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...) I'm not sure how you could accurately model a pilot body without its movements being either too distracting or too static. As has been pointed out, in a/c before the days of HOTAS changing throttle, trim and holding the stick would need several hands. With my own setup the most things I can think of doing simultaneously is seven - holding the stick and changing trim, radiators, flaps, RPM and throttle and changing supercharger gears. With a bit of a reach I could drop the gear and open the canopy and bomb doors as well, and there's ten simultaneous operations that a WWII pilot would have only had two hands to do. If cowl flaps or oil radiators are present there's eleven.

 

How do you animate that?

Is your pilot going to reach for each switch and control when pressed, bearing in mind that each cockpit is different and that would require a fair bit of work?

If so, what happens if you hit something else while the animation is still going, is there a smooth transition or an abrupt jump? What about the time delay it would take to move your hand from the throttle to the trim wheel to move it, will that be modelled or will it be instantaneous as now but with the delay in animation?

What happens if you hit multiple things at once, will your pilot start wildly flailing his arms around partially hitting all but actually hitting none if his movements can't catch up with yours quickly enough?

 

 

 

I had mentioned it before, how I would suggest dealing with this:   https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/14311-pilot-body-cockpit/?do=findComment&comment=500250

 

 

having fully animated hands, as you said, would be very complex and cumbersome. not to mention a rather unpleasant obstruction to have in the cockpit - definitely a "no" to that

 

 

 

what I would like to see, however, is the same as there was in "Lock On:  Modern Air Combat" (the grandfather of DCS world) 

 

this is what I mean: 

 

34564534646465.jpg

000360s01.jpgloacpc022.jpg

 

 

 

all hand operated controls are fully animated, but arms and hands are not visible (allowing them to be anywhere and everywhere at any one time)

 

 

legs are modelled, and could be animated as well easily enough, since they move very predictably.

 

 

the torso of the pilot could be modelled to some extent, with view constraints such that a maximum pitch down angle cannot be exceeded, the "unsightly ends" of the model would never be visible

 

 

 

and of course, make it a toggle option, so that everyone is happy with whichever way they prefer

Edited by 19//Moach
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, if that's how it comes out I'd be happy with that. In DCS I tend to turn off visibility of pilot body but only because it can make it more tricky to see certain information or access certain functions.

 

But as we don't have any more detailed systems modelling other than 'press E for engine' then this won't be a concern.

 

In all honesty I'd still rather not have dev time being given to this before the release of Kuban at least, especially considering the varied uniforms and flying kit that it would require - not just a 'one-size fits all' approach which I wouldn't want to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest deleted@30725

Pointless.

 

Those SS for lockon are creepy. There are legs, but no feet on the rudder pedals and plus the no hands. Whole thing in those ss is yuck.

 

The hands in the ww2 SS look cool, but only in the SS. In DCS I have it off as the models get in the way and they're not tracked to my hands so I can't move the stupid things glued to the controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...