Gunnery

[HagarTheHorrible]

I think many of us are quite excited to try WW1 in VR, especially this generation of VR, with it's present limitations and how that affects game play.  WW1 air combat might, one hopes, be a better fit, one that I think a lot of players here are keen to try.

 

One aspect of computer simulations that, on a flat, two dimensional,  screen has always been the poor cousin is the point and click nature of most shooting and gunnery skills.  Anyone who has tried a shooting game in VR will, no doubt, have enjoyed the added challenge that comes with it, with a far more realistic simulation of aiming, rather than just pointing.  I'm quite excited to see how this translates into FC, with it's ring and post sights,  and if it will revolutionize the experience of gunnery.  I think, up till now, the very fact that when the DR1 first made an appearance in game it came without a sight altogether sums up how deficient RoF, and other games, are when it comes to the need for shooting skills. I will be fascinated to see if it changes how people approach dogfighting and if it will make the various strengths and weaknesses of different aircraft designs more apparent when, in the past, it might have been more of a case of letting the bullets do the talking rather than tactical or flying skills.

 

Away from the febrile, hot white spotlight,  atmosphere that is BoX development I hope that FC can take a more considered, experimental, path when it comes to trying different ideas.  Two sweaters ( don't you just love auto-correct) were a potent weapon by the end of the war, a lesson not forgotten by the Germans, even if, by the next war, it was painfully obvious it was so last decade.  I hope that it will be possible to include VR controllers when it comes to using crew served weapons.  It may not be a must have but it might translate, in the future, to whole new avenues of interaction across the Great Battles range of titles, whether it be Tank Crew or just Arty spotting with binoculars, plotting on maps,  photo taking  or manning AAA guns, having your hands in the game adds to the immersion in a big, big way that might seem less than obvious to the uninitiated.  FC with it's better fit for present gen VR  might be the place to test the concept and, at the same time be it's biggest, if not it's only, beneficiary.

[unreasonable]

You do not need VR to use ring and post sights in RoF - or FC I assume - just TiR set up so that you can move your PoV behind either or both MGs and actually use the sights.  Been doing it for years: comes into it's own with the "improved gunnery" setting that does away with the shotgun effect, which I imagine will be default in FC - the improved version that is, not the shotgun.   When you look down the barrel of a gun to aim you are one eye dominant even if you keep both eyes open, TiR does a good job of simulating this.

[HagarTheHorrible]

TiR constrains the head in a way that VR does not.

 

Shooting and lining up iron sights is as different and revolutionary, in VR, as flying with TiR was in it's day.  In VR every head movement is translated from real life so if your head is slightly out of perfect alignment, even by millimeters, then shots of increasing distance become ever more ineffective.  TiR puts your head in the perfect position, every time, so much so that, as I've already alluded to, you don't even need a gun sight, just a single reference point, such as a couple of bracing wires crossing or radiator filler cap.  Given the difficulties, which admtably won't all be present in FC, of getting the perfect sight picture, ring and bead sights become more of a guide rather than a precision instrument.  

 

I wonder if, even slight, head displacement during manoevering might be beneficial to the challenge for VR gamers. Compensating for Incorrect sight alignment due to "g" might be a far more natural process to correct than with TiR, with it's dulled, laggy, centre point making accurate, unloaded,  flying more important when it comes to taking the shot.

Edited July 6, 2018 by HagarTheHorrible

[unreasonable]

6 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

TiR constrains the head in a way that VR does not.

 

Shooting and lining up iron sights is as different and revolutionary, in VR, as flying with TiR was in it's day.  In VR every head movement is translated from real life so if your head is slightly out of perfect alignment, even by millimeters, then shots of increasing distance become ever more ineffective.  TiR puts your head in the perfect position, every time, so much so that, as I've already alluded to, you don't even need a gun sight, just a single reference point, such as a couple of bracing wires crossing or radiator filler cap.  Given the difficulties, which admtably won't all be present in FC, of getting the perfect sight picture, ring and bead sights become more of a guide rather than a precision instrument.  

 

I wonder if, even slight, head displacement during manoevering might be beneficial to the challenge for VR gamers. Compensating for Incorrect sight alignment due to "g" might be a far more natural process to correct than with TiR, with it's dulled, laggy, centre point making accurate, unloaded,  flying more important when it comes to taking the shot.

 

No, TiR only puts your head in perfect alignment if you have fixed a default position to the gunsight and then do not move your head.  I do not do that: the default position in my case is where I estimate the pov of the head in normal flight.  To use sights the head has to be moved into alignment in 3D with one or the other iron sight - or the optical sight where these are fitted, and then has to be kept still.  Actually that can be especially hard in TiR because movement is geared: a tiny movement of the head - especially in rotation -  translates into a larger than 1:1 movement of the view.  If your TiR centre point is dulled and laggy that is your fault for setting it up that way: mine is neither.

 

Your point that it is much easier in the game to keep your head still than in a real aircraft subjected to Gs, ( also perhaps wind forces and vibration ) I agree with.  But this is true for all visual systems. There was IIRC a headshake mechanism in RoF trying to simulate this (or was that another game?) but I expect hardly anyone uses it. I tried it and it just made me dizzy. At some point you have to accept that you are there to have fun, not to throw up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Headshake (ROF, BOS) won't move you view cam , it just add vibration to the cockpit instruments, conopy etc.  BTW we all use center view dedzone to stabilize view at gunsight , don't we?

[Zooropa_Fly]

6 minutes ago, 307_Tomcat said:

Headshake (ROF, BOS) won't move you view cam , it just add vibration to the cockpit instruments, conopy etc.  BTW we all use center view dedzone to stabilize view at gunsight , don't we?

 

I do, makes re-centering much easier too !

[unreasonable]

47 minutes ago, 307_Tomcat said:

Headshake (ROF, BOS) won't move you view cam , it just add vibration to the cockpit instruments, conopy etc.  BTW we all use center view dedzone to stabilize view at gunsight , don't we?

 

Depends on the plane. In 109s, no - I centre it in the centre, and move my head a little to use the sight. Having the cockpit off centre all the time annoys me.

 

I think Hagar is talking about the WW1 aircraft with two MGs, some of which do not have a central sight at all: so you either just memorize the position of the tracer stream relative to wires, or  move your head so that you are looking along one of the MG's iron sights.  The latter is much better for longer shots: when someone is smack in front of you at 50 yards it does not matter. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Yea my 109 center is little bit off center  

[HagarTheHorrible]

As I'm sure you are aware collamator sights, as used by most fighters in WW2, were designed precisely because of the problem of using a post and ring sight. Exact head position is far less critical and requires considerably less concentration to ensure accurate targeting, only needing to line up two things rather than three.

 

i never came across a TiR profile that translated one for one movement, across all 6 vectors. Pitch and yaw obviously require scaling to overcome flat screen limitations but the other 4, in theory, could be set to 1-1, with no central inertia, and yet I've never come across a profile that does that.  All profiles had a central zone of inertia ( not lag, wrong choice of word earlier).  TiR profiles always return your head back in a default pre-configured head position, wherever that position might be according to the players wishes.  I never, ever, felt that it provided a feeling of natural head movement, around my default head position before scaling up as I looked further and further around.  Even with true view enabled having your head out of center before looking L/R, U/D was just asking for accumulated tracking errors. TiR is fantastic, an order of magnitude above what was available before, but it does not come close to the reality of targeting, of using iron sights, that is provided by VR.  The big difference between using TiR and VR is possibly, probably, 3D.  The game might be 3D but you only ever see it in 2D with TiR, VR adds a whole new dimension and challenge.

 

 "G" head displacement,  as seen in titles such as Clod, was always more of a pain than a pleasure.  It just didn't gel well with how TiR worked and exacerbated TiR's shortcomings making it feel awkward and unnatural, a nice idea but one that didn't translate well.  VR might, MIGHT, be different, with it's 1-1 translation and more natural feel, although VR users may have to wait until Clod 5 before that theory can be tested, which might be a shame as it is while using WW1 ring and bead sights that it will be most effectively felt.

Edited July 8, 2018 by HagarTheHorrible

[unreasonable]

Well we will just have to agree to disagree. Obviously TiR does not make you turn your head right around to look behind you - how can it?  I have no doubt that for general looking around VR more closely replicates the head movements an actual pilot must make: whether this is a good thing is entirely a matter of opinion.  I will not use it simply because I need to be able to see keyboard and various switches easily: working a HOTAS cockpit is much more difficult that using a real one.  But for gunnery I just think you are dead wrong - TiR can replicate this easily since it requires such a small range of head movement. 

 

Being in a real cockpit and moving your head to get your eye behind an iron sight requires about 3-6 inches of head movement: you can replicate that in TiR easily enough if you want. If TiR is one-one over that range you would have to move your head more than in RL, since in TiR you only have one "eye" in the middle of your forehead. 

 

I actually have used iron sights in machine guns, albeit not in a WW1 aeroplane - I find TiR an entirely adequate method of simulation.  After all, the whole point of simulation is to recreate salient points of a RL experience in a convenient manner - not to replicate them.

 

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

44 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Well we will just have to agree to disagree.