Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Valis

The necessity of realistic head movement in IL-2

Recommended Posts

If IL-2 is to have any claim to being realistic then movement must be introduced to the virtual pilot's head.

 

Look at these screen-shots  -

 

dJPbrnf.png

 

JDD1sYT.png

 

uMVt2Ds.png

 

gIlTKvD.png

 

In the first screenshot the aircraft is recovering from a dive at appx. 5G. In the second the aircraft is violently nosing over (bunting) appx. negative 3G. In the third screenshot the aircraft is snap-rolling as fast as possible to the right. In the last picture the aircraft is in an appx. 4G left hand turn.

 

And yet despite being subject to G-forces that would realistically either sink him into his seat, launch him upwards against his straps, smack the side of his head into the canopy....our magnificent pilot is nevertheless able to maintain perfect sighting through the reticle.

 

This is completely and utterly unrealistic. In fact the only way it could possibly be realistic is if our virtual hero had welded his head to the back-plate. I have been unable to find any records of pilots attempting this. Even the original IL-2 implemented a modest amount head movement.....why it's been totally removed for this generation is beyond me. 

 

Merry Christmas!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. There is minimal movement if you chose to switch on the option.

2. The pilot is strapped in, it's not like his body is moving all that much in his seat.

3. Please no violent shaking of the head, that's gonna make people puke and it's gonna be annoying as hell.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that I would like to see implemented would be the vision over the shoulder when I look at 6 hours without having to slide sideways the body. As it is today, the pilot looks 180 degrees behind

Edited by 3./JG15_Kampf
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Etherlight said:

Please no violent shaking of the head, that's gonna make people puke and it's gonna be annoying as hell.

 

 

Having to mess around with prop pitch is annoying to some. Blacking out under heavy G-Load is annoying to others.

 

But if the goal is to simulate reality then having a virtual pilot subjected to the same forces as their real-life counterpart is not controversial.

 

The physical loads on a pilot's head, neck and body during maneuvering should be a huge factor in a simulation of air combat. You can wish them away because they would be 'annoying' but I'm sure they were just as 'annoying' to the pilots doing the fighting. If realism is important for IL-2 then the simulation of the effects on the pilot is essential.

 

As it currently stands this....

 

TttI2F9.gif

 

...is not realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CloD does this for sideways movement and roll, and I dont play CloD because of it. Its needlessly nauseating as my own felt G forces dont match the games. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Valis said:

 

Having to mess around with prop pitch is annoying to some. Blacking out under heavy G-Load is annoying to others.

 

But if the goal is to simulate reality then having a virtual pilot subjected to the same forces as their real-life counterpart is not controversial.

 

The physical loads on a pilot's head, neck and body during maneuvering should be a huge factor in a simulation of air combat. You can wish them away because they would be 'annoying' but I'm sure they were just as 'annoying' to the pilots doing the fighting. If realism is important for IL-2 then the simulation of the effects on the pilot is essential.

 

As it currently stands this....

 

TttI2F9.gif

deleted

Edited by SharpeXB
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having done some 5g pulls IRL I do not recall a major movement of my body or head. Push down surely pushes you up a bit, maybe a few centimeters maximum (1 - 4 I would say), so maybe there would be a little bit for improvement. But generally speaking I'm with others here, as you are not connected to the plane and actually receiving these forces a preprogrammed head movement is easily going to cause you nausea, also because you IRL would likely react differently to whatever forces due to anticipation, how tightly you pulled your straps etc.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

The reality is that your vision doesn’t shake in real life like I could be made to in a game. Just drive down a bumpy road and notice how you can still see clearly. This topic has already been discussed to death in sims. 

 

You're comparing apples and oranges. Our ability to ignore bumps, rain, windscreen wipers or other things interfering with our vision does not mean those things magically disappear. Formula 1 drivers are probably the best example of ignoring the rain - so does that mean F1 simulators should not bother simulating the rain? Bumping up and down in a car while focused on something 50 feet away is no problem - our eyes can do the heavy lifting.

 

But now you're driving down the road with your eye looking perfectly through a Revi stuck on the dashboard only 8 inches away from your eye. You hit a bump.....what happens? Here's what doesn't happen - your eye remains perfectly lined up with the reticle. This is what we have now.

 

The pilot being simulated in IL-2 is basically a Go-Pro attached to the head-rest.

 

Watch this pilot's head & body compressing under G, hanging from his straps while inverted, head inertia during snap rolls....and compare it to ours. Does anyone really believe this pilot could keep his eyes looking straight down a gun-sight during these maneuvers?

 

eon71os.gif

 

 

Edited by Valis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Valis said:

 

Watch this pilot's head & body compressing under G, hanging from his straps while inverted, head inertia during snap rolls....and compare it to ours. Does anyone really believe this pilot could keep his eyes looking straight down a gun-sight during these maneuvers?

 

eon71os.gif

 

 

 

The only thing I really see is sidewards movements as an issue. Straps of the pilot are rather loose. When I put mine on its like my torso is part of the plane, I like it tight (no pun intended) and would like to have that in a sim too. :)

 

But again: Nausea. As a nonenforced option? Sure why not, but I don't think the team should have this on a priority list.

 

Take this as an example:

The pilot is snaprolling and doing turns with up to 6G. Don't look at the shoulders, due to the closeness to the camera the proportions seem off. Focus on the eyes and you will see that its really just a few centimeters of movement. And he is not even trying to look through a gunsight, which would make him try and keep the head at a fixed position.

 

 

Edited by 216th_Jordan
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

But again: Nausea. As a nonenforced option? Sure why not, but I don't think the team should have this on a priority list.

 

Yes optional, I don't want it imposed on anyone - not my business how anyone enjoys their IL-2.

 

e: just watching the vid you posted - to be fair his rolls are pretty mild, but what is interesting is his vertical motion as he goes through being inverted. 

 

Here's what happens when our pilot goes inverted...

 

TxXJxLZ.png

 

5i7JSGX.png

 

....basically nothing. Either our pilot has the greatest straps ever made or....

Edited by Valis
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The pilot or driver also anticipates their own movements. Watch a video with a passenger and see how much more the passengers head moves. 

 

You can anticipate all you want - but no amount of preparedness will prevent you (and your view-point) from sinking into the seat under high G loads or otherwise being affected by violent maneuvering.

 

I offer a challenge to anyone - show me a maneuver in IL-2 that denies the pilot from looking straight down the reticle.

 

I have been unable to do it - I've thrown our virtual pilot through all kinds of vomit-inducing acrobatics and not once have I been unable to see perfectly down the gun-sight. From 9G pull-outs, to negative 4G push-overs, to snap-rolls, to literally tumbling through the sky our pilot's head, neck & body remain rock steady.

 

Only on the Planet-of-the-Heads-Welded-to-Airplanes is that a remotely realistic simulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Valis said:

If IL-2 is to have any claim to being realistic then movement must be introduced to the virtual pilot's head. 

Wow, you are correct! I always thought there was head movement when you check "Shake in Cockpit" under Camera.

But testing this setting it appears to have no effect in the game. I though maybe I was remembering RoF but there is no effect in that game either.

so yes, there should be an effect. It would make the game feel more immersive and correct.

 

correction. There IS a head movement effect, it’s just slight. The “Shake in Cockpit” doesn’t affect this. Maybe I’ll read the game manual to figure out what that does. I always thought it turned the G effect on and off. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Valis said:

 

Having to mess around with prop pitch is annoying to some. Blacking out under heavy G-Load is annoying to others.

 

 But if the goal is to simulate reality then having a virtual pilot subjected to the same forces as their real-life counterpart is not controversial.

 

 

Non of these induce motion sickness in people.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I always thought there was head movement when you check "Shake in Cockpit" under Camera.

 

Yeah, I think the 'Shake' option refers to the vibration through the airframe, most noticeable when you're idling on the ground. It's subtle but very well done.

 

15 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

Non of these induce motion sickness in people.

 

VR induces motion sickness in people.

 

So let's not have VR.

 

Right?

Edited by Valis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Valis said:

 

Yeah, I think the 'Shake' option refers to the vibration through the airframe, most noticeable when you're idling on the ground. It's subtle but very well done.

 

 

VR induces motion sickness in people.

 

So let's not have VR.

 

Right?

You ahve a choice to play with VR or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

You ahve a choice to play with VR or not.

 

On 12/26/2018 at 3:50 AM, Valis said:

Yes optional, I don't want it imposed on anyone - not my business how anyone enjoys their IL-2.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DCS has head movement which is pretty exaggerated. 

It’s really annoying!

it makes you feel like you’re made out of rubber and combined with how jumpy sim aircraft are, it’s just terrible. 

The “off” setting there feels more like BoS which just makes you feel more in control. 

I guess the bottom line is that in sims, vision is the only feedback you have and messing with that too much just makes controlling the plane more odd. 

This isn’t real life, it’s an image on a PC screen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My pilot's head is moving all over the place, especially in negative G situations or  positive G situations. I even missed few shots during negative Gs due to the fact that the head moved up so far away that I couldnt see the sights.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the way to state this is that in reality your head moves but your perception doesn’t. Your “vision” IRL isn’t like a camera strapped to your head. Your sense of space and motion isn’t thrown around when you drive along a bumpy road or ride a roller coaster. When the sim effect is exaggerated and vision of a 2D screen is your only connection to the 3D world beyond it gets too disorienting. 

I’m curious what VR users think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 12/28/2018 at 6:30 AM, SharpeXB said:

DCS has head movement which is pretty exaggerated. It’s really annoying!

 

That's because you're not used to it! :) 

 

I don't think it's perfect but for flying and fighting it's a) much more realistic b) makes the whole experience so much more fluid - there really is a difference between level flight and inverted; it's not like just the colours have swapped places.

 

That's why I find IL-2 (this iteration) so jarringly rigid to play.

 

On 12/28/2018 at 8:36 PM, SharpeXB said:

Your “vision” IRL isn’t like a camera strapped to your head.

 

Exactly - nor is it like a camera welded to the headrest.

 

Edited by Valis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but in DCS it’s overdone like you’re made of rubber. Thankfully it can be turned off. No desire to have that effect in IL-2

21 hours ago, Valis said:

Exactly - nor is it like a camera welded to the headrest.

 

Both sims actually have head movement, it’s just reduced. Even in DCS the Off setting still has some effect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 12/28/2018 at 12:36 PM, SharpeXB said:

I’m curious what VR users think. 

In VR, the best practice is to avoid taking away camera movement control from the player. Developers generally don't include walking camera wobble, explosion shaking, etc. Camera movements that don't match the physical movement increase the risk of simulation sickness and decrease immersion.

 

Head movement would only feel right in VR if it matched the acceleration felt by the player.

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What VR  users think: Track IR should be banned. Having 360 owl vision (tm) means that no one can sneak up on TrackIR 360 radar head movements.

 

I hurt my neck. twice, in VR. Now my neck has more muscles than my wanking arm. TrackIR users have it easy. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CptSiddy said:

What VR  users think: Track IR should be banned.

🙄 good luck with that. Poor VR users... always something to complain about. You asked for virtual reality, with 1:1 physical immersion, now deal with it. 😧

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

🙄 good luck with that. Poor VR users... always something to complain about. You asked for virtual reality, with 1:1 physical immersion, now deal with it. 😧

 

Flying in VR just shows that using TrackIR is far from a realistic vision and gives you super-human (unrealistic) capabilities. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

Flying in VR just shows that using TrackIR is far from a realistic vision and gives you super-human (unrealistic) capabilities. Nothing more, nothing less. 

 

Flying a digital airplane while sitting in a comfortable office chair, with the ability to pause and restart the game without any fear of death, is far from realistic and gives you superhuman (unrealistic) capabilities. Nothing more, nothing less. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LukeFF said:

 

Flying a digital airplane while sitting in a comfortable office chair, with the ability to pause and restart the game without any fear of death, is far from realistic and gives you superhuman (unrealistic) capabilities. Nothing more, nothing less. 

 

Yes, but we can still strive for as much realism as possible, in areas where it makes sense. Otherwise we don't need simulators but can go back playing Crimson Skies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

Flying in VR just shows that using TrackIR is far from a realistic vision and gives you super-human (unrealistic) capabilities. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Mouse view or snap view does the same thing. Are you going to ban those too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Mouse view or snap view does the same thing. Are you going to ban those too?

 

I was talking about all of them, not only TrackIR. I was talking about all non-VR view options. I never said anything about "banning"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

I was talking about all of them, not only TrackIR. I was talking about all non-VR view options. I never said anything about "banning"

Ok CptSiddy said “ban”

What’s your point then?

All the view methods including VR don’t necessarily allow an unrealistic range of view, pilots can indeed look behind depending on the cockpit design. They just allow it with less effort compared to VR. The same way we can pull out of a dive with a finger on the stick instead of both hands applying 50 lb of force. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Flying a digital airplane while sitting in a comfortable office chair, with the ability to pause and restart the game without any fear of death, is far from realistic and gives you superhuman (unrealistic) capabilities. Nothing more, nothing less. 

 

Soooooo, if we stretch your logic a bit, this kind of shenanigans is just fine... Because "muh digital airmchair pilots" and stuff.

 

I mean, i understand i am making hyperbole argument but... the logic still stands. So what is your cut off point to "realism" and where will we all gladly admit just being an armchair peasant pilots? 

 

The way you look at the screen, or the fact that some FM's and engine managements are all over the place? What is more important in realism?

I can argue that my glorious american WEP should outlast the 109 WEP by hours because my plane was made in american high quality factory by strong independent woman labor and not in bombed out shack by slave labor. Many documents and anecdotes corroborate this reality! 

 

Now i know i am a bit confrontational now. But in game where we strive for "realism", whatever that means, should it not be so, that the unrealistic actions be more restricted? We did impose limits to stabilizer responsiveness to stop the linking the pitch axis abuse. Why not give some sort of head roll penalty for non VR user, where rolling head to un natural postures just causes them to snap their silly little necks :crazy: 

 

I don't know, i am just brainstorming here. There is nothing fundamental wrong in what you stated here, its just the way you apply your fundamentals that irks me: when something suits you, its ok. When it dont? You dig up a pile of "secrit documents" saying it should be like X. 

 

12 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Ok CptSiddy said “ban”

What’s your point then?

All the view methods including VR don’t necessarily allow an unrealistic range of view, pilots can indeed look behind depending on the cockpit design. They just allow it with less effort compared to VR. The same way we can pull out of a dive with a finger on the stick instead of both hands applying 50 lb of force. 

 

 

I was being sarcastic and hyperbolic. I have hurt my neck, twice, before i got used to the new range of motions that i subjected my neck to.  However, in me doing so, i stumbled on some hilarious justifications for "its a game" that would not fly in any other contexts by these same people. :biggrin:

21 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

Yes, but we can still strive for as much realism as possible, in areas where it makes sense. Otherwise we don't need simulators but can go back playing Crimson Skies

 

 

That was awesome game and i would still pay it if it was relevant game in current year! 

 

 

 

And some other thing that just popped in to my mind: Most of times where i got shot down was because someone sneaked up to me. I, as a VR user, need to do considerable acrobatics in my sim chair to check six all day long. 

 

I can almost instantly tell when someone is in TrackIR, because the way they have 360 command of their sky, and night impossibility of sneaking up from any direction just solidifies the fact that these TrackIR..... simmers, are not. (at least in the most fundamental meaning of the word)

And when i used to do TrackIR, it suited me just fine, gave me tremendous advantage over traditional mouse look or padlock. It is only now apparent to me how much of a **** bag i was to simmers that took simming part seriously. 

I guess this is the price we simmers pay for our extra immersion: casuals get gamey advantages over us, that would not be there would we ever be put in real warbirds and have a go at each other :biggrin:.  And in that warm thought i get most of my solace. 

Edited by CptSiddy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Ok CptSiddy said “ban”

What’s your point then?

All the view methods including VR don’t necessarily allow an unrealistic range of view, pilots can indeed look behind depending on the cockpit design. They just allow it with less effort compared to VR. The same way we can pull out of a dive with a finger on the stick instead of both hands applying 50 lb of force. 

 

Real pilots can not turn their head by 180°, they can not move their head at lightspeed, they can not focus on things behind them, they can not look back while maneuvering.

This "checking your opponent at your six and reacting to his every move and shooting" (I used to do it as well) is absolutely unrealistic and impossible to do in real life (and with VR), so yes, it's not only effort, it's a whole lot more (unrealistic) advantages TrackIR/snapview users have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You guys are comical. I remember when TrackIR first came out years ago, the typical overly-vocal types came out saying, "it's cheating!!! Snapview players will be at a disadvantage!!! It's a rich person's toy!!! It's not fair that others can use this tech and I cannot!!! Things eventually died down, and people came to grips with the fact that TrackIR and its derivatives were here to stay. Now, virtual reality comes along for the game (hey, another rich person's toy!) and now the complaints have come full circle - only now it's both TrackIR users and snapview users that are seen as having an unfair advantage. 

Edited by LukeFF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Now, virtual reality comes along for the game (hey, another rich person's toy!) and now the complaints have come full circle - only now it's both TrackIR users and snapview users that are seen as having an unfair advantage. 

 

It's not "seen as if", they have a clear advantage. "Unfair" is always in the eyes of the beholder. They definitely have an unrealistic advantage though. 

 

It's not the technology that is the problem (e.g. TrackIR), it's how the software incorporates the technology. 

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*

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
Sign in to follow this  

×