Any word on arms and legs?

[Jade_Monkey]

I don't care about arms and legs, [...]

Thought about this:

 

And then I saw your name     

[dburne]

Thought about this:

 

And then I saw your name     

 

LOL, one of the funniest movies of all time!

[19//Moach]

One of the problems that does not get discussed with the body question is the effect that having it might have on the allowable range of head positions.  There is no doubt that the game currently gives players a lot of latitude in where they place their "eyeball" in the cockpit: it seems that it is fairly popular to place it well back to increase "peripheral vision" compared to what you would get if you line up the eyeball with where the pilot's face should be, using the outside view as a guide.  I use a "realistic" forwards position now that I have TiR and a big screen, but I used to use a more rear position so I sympathize with people trying to play with small monitors.

 

If there was then a pilot body in 1st person view, would you then be able to see the back of your avatar's head? Some of the view positions you see in videos are definitely embedded in the head rest. If not, how do you match up the head to the neck?  

 

Edit - I would prefer a pilot body, it would be fun if modders could get it in as an option, but it is way down the list of things to fix or add.

 

 

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:

 

 

 

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 July 14, 2017 by 19//Moach

[unreasonable]

Can you also see the cockpit from the dog's pov?

 

 

"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"

 

I agree, as you demonstrate, and games with a 1st person perspective such as Elder Scrolls manage without too much difficulty - but that would mean a significant reduction in the placement of the lidless eye compared to what we have now which I expect would cause sad wailing.  I am certainly in the camp that would prefer a body.  Any body's going to have to do..

[FuriousMeow]

Ballcocks. 

 

If it were such an issue, no bodies would be present in Bombers or at the very least there would be an option, so I'm sorry but I think you're talking out of your helmet (flying that is ).

 

 

 

Do you play in VR ?

 

Playing in VR  move your eye point to it's limit (or not ,because you have to adjust your eye point in normal 2D)  usually to the right to stay in the cockpit and, hey presto, pilot,  you just don't look through his eyes, although you're still playing as him. Depending on how close that enemy fighter is it could be described as a near death out of body experience 

 

I'm comfortable playing without a pilots body, I don't mind.  I get the arguments for not implementing bodies in non VR but I don't buy the arguments against with the new technology, it might be rough and ready, there might be clipping issues (like that's never been an issue in computer games or brought them to a standstill) that make it something other than a novelty or limit head views to pedestrian, bomber pilot, movements, it may be imperfect but then what is ?  As imperfect as it might be I remain to be convinced that it's not a  "0" or a "1"

 

No, I don't play with VR. But VR is not some magical instant implementation. It requires work to create the body, it requires work to add the view point and make it work with VR, it requires simply a lot of work for very little. VR is still a limited niche. Air combat sims are a limited niche. WWII air combat sims with VR are such a small slice that it isn't even worth crunching the numbers on.

 

In any event, just because VR exists doesn't mean it is something easy to add without a lot of development time.

 

The AI controlled 3D external bomber pilot models are something totally separate from a first person viewpoint. They do not work the same. They have nothing to do with your "arms and legs" wants, they won't work. Just give up on that one.

Edited July 14, 2017 by FuriousMeow

[Yogiflight]

But the copilot in the Ju52 works that way. Whenever you move your controls, the yoke moves the copilot's arms and whenever you move your rudderpedals, his rudderpedals move his legs. So this way of animated body is already existing in the game. The bigger problem surely is the 6DOF, which makes it hard to have the pilot head position work with the possibilities you have to position the camera. On the other side, I positioned the camera in the radio operator and the observer position in the Ju88 as far away from the default position as possible, you just don't see it from outside, and the default position of the radio operator isn't seen from outside, anyway, as it is not over his seat, but in the middle between the two machineguns.

But I agree, that it is no highest priority stuff.

[Flitgun]

I hate having a body in a virtually cockpit, at least in DCS. because often TrackIr is not aligned and then it become a headless body and you see where your head suppose to be. I have nothing against it if it would be optional for each and every one like in DCS

 

I also thought of the inadequacies of the DCS virtual body. The body stays still and you look back at your headless body or look down into your chest. I think it's better to not have it there at all, rather than have a bad virtual body that one is constantly being reminded of whenever one looks down. 

 

To get it perfect would be a huge job, I imagine, so I too would rather the devs did something more interesting.

[Livai]

Do you think they plan to model us? Sounds like a lot of fun!

 

 

[Trident_109]

No flight sim can be considered the true successor to IL2 STURMOVIK and have a body in the pilot's seat. ;-)

[Chief_Mouser]

Your cockpit body would have to be implanted with the skills of a clairvoyant, or how else would it know that you were going to move your hand onto the flaps/landing gear/bomb bay doors etc levers? Delayed reaction would look stupid, and a body that kept its hands firmly on the stick and throttle all day long would defeat the object of greater immersion and be stupid as well. I don't like having no-one at home, but the empty cockpit is good enough until the time of player motion capture comes along.

[unreasonable]

Your cockpit body would have to be implanted with the skills of a clairvoyant, or how else would it know that you were going to move your hand onto the flaps/landing gear/bomb bay doors etc levers? Delayed reaction would look stupid, and a body that kept its hands firmly on the stick and throttle all day long would defeat the object of greater immersion and be stupid as well. I don't like having no-one at home, but the empty cockpit is good enough until the time of player motion capture comes along.

 

That is a very good point, but I do not see how motion capture is going to help unless you are sitting in a replica cockpit for the particular plane in the sim:  with keyboard commands your avatar to look will look as though he is fiddling with his flies most of the time.

[CUJO_1970]

I just don't get it personally...I've never had a problem with the empty cockpit if viewed from inside the plane.

 

And, as brought out above, if you add a body inside you've got a ton of animations to add as well?

[Brano]

In Elite Dangerous the body of the pilot is present there sitting in the pilots chair. The head movement is quite restricted with 6DOF as the body doesnt move together with head. If it had so much freedom as in sturm,it would look like flying head in the cockpit. I can allready now see "into the neck" of my space pilot when doing some extreme look down movements   To avoid this,the whole body would have to move together with head to simulate leaning right/left/up/down...

 

Your cockpit body would have to be implanted with the skills of a clairvoyant, or how else would it know that you were going to move your hand onto the flaps/landing gear/bomb bay doors etc levers? Delayed reaction would look stupid, and a body that kept its hands firmly on the stick and throttle all day long would defeat the object of greater immersion and be stupid as well. I don't like having no-one at home, but the empty cockpit is good enough until the time of player motion capture comes along.

And also this,I agree 

[MrNoice]

war thunder and DCS have got bodies in the cockpit....
 

Edited July 17, 2017 by MrFies

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

war thunder and DCS have got bodies in the cockpit....

war thunder and DCS have got bodies in the cockpit....

 

An astute observation.

[Uufflakke]

Your cockpit body would have to be implanted with the skills of a clairvoyant, or how else would it know that you were going to move your hand onto the flaps/landing gear/bomb bay doors etc levers? Delayed reaction would look stupid, and a body that kept its hands firmly on the stick and throttle all day long would defeat the object of greater immersion and be stupid as well.

 

Never thought about the real-time movement indeed. 

A VR Glove might be the solution.

 

And with the virtual hands fixed to the stick is kind of odd when pressing the key for retracting manually the landing gear in a I-16. And no activity to be seen from the pilot.

 

Pilot body yes or no should be optional.

It has been suggested several times already in related topics.

 

Many don't like a pilot body because it blocks the way to what there is to see in the cockpit itself.

[Finkeren]

A VR Glove might be the solution.

 

If I still have my old Nintendo PowerGlove, will that work you think?

 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

If I still have my old Nintendo PowerGlove, will that work you think?

 

-snip-

 

Yeah, looks like you've got enough buttons there to map most of the electrical switches in the 109/190 when they introduce clickpits.

 

/s

Edited July 17, 2017 by Space_Ghost

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

No arms/legs please. No clickpits please.

 

I play IL-2. I do not play DCS and have no desire to. Leave those things over there.

Edited July 17, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[Sim]

The pilot body is a must for VR, but since this is still a very niche market - I do understand why it's an ignored feature right now. To be fair, flying Bf 109 in DCS in VR with pilot body on and off is like day and night for me. Especially if you have a hotas system that you can match with your virtual cockpit controls. It's very satisfying to see your virtual hands/legs move in perfect sync with you motions - and your brain will accept this as an extension of you without much further thought

 

Also, when you say the pilot body will obstruct this or that or have other issues - keep in mind that this team does not take things for granted. Just look at the recent mirror implementation - it's pretty much like nothing has been done in the industry before. I am sure they can solve the pilot body issues just as well.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Sim

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

I am sure they can solve the pilot body issues just as well.

 

Best solution to visual obstruction?

 

Not having them.

 

That and it is evident from this thread that YMMV as far as body/VR.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Space_Ghost