Jump to content
KB-Kriechbaum

We need limited rearward view in fighters!

Recommended Posts

100% agree on the need for greater limits re view limits. It is patently unrealistic at the minute. With regards the 109 video is he using WW2 era shoulder harness? Possibly a modern harness allows more movement.

 

The rear view picture below is seat height raised, full forward lean, full right lean, head to the rear. Easy enough to do with Track IR. Do you think that is what the pilot in the G4 could see?

 

Even in modern documentation point to six o'xlock limits. It seems true six o'clock vision is limited. See F-16 documentation. Most likely you can see a little beyond 70, but they use 70 degrees for a reason.

 

Also I think there should be a limit on the the heads ability to move up. The amount of videos showing people moving their head up to get better vision over the nose when deflection shooting is also an issue IMHO. See deflection picture. IRL Are you really going to set your initial seat position high in order to get this slightly better down view (would you head actually be limited by the canopy more than it currently does. Also do you really think that whilst under G you would have the ability to raise your view point?

 

rearview.jpg

rear view F-16.jpgdeflection.jpg

Edited by SCFG_DC
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again... a large dead zone like that is going to un-center the TrackIR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would it un center track IR? I don’t think that is how it works. Could be mistaken though.

If you set track r to rotate 270 degrees of Simulated head movement for 45 degrees of real head movement it will stop at the above 180 point no continue to show you 270.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SCFG_DC said:

Why would it un center track IR? I don’t think that is how it works. Could be mistaken though.

If you set track r to rotate 270 degrees of Simulated head movement for 45 degrees of real head movement it will stop at the above 180 point no continue to show you 270.

When you look into the dead zone your real head keeps moving but your virtual one stops, then if you move back out of the zone in a different position, what happens? I’m sure there’s a reason this game and most all games are like this. Project Cars 2 has a reward limit but it’s not really a big deal because you never look back when racing, the limit seems silly when you try to pull back on track and can’t look. Yeah I know race car drivers certainly are strapped in with a head restraint. But WWII pilots weren’t. 
 

Maybe it could work? I don’t know. But messing around with the head movement has the potential to really screw things up. DCS did some things recently which were awkward but now works well. It still loses center very often though.  TrackIR by itself never needs re-centering, it’s the games that make it un-center, for whatever reason. IL-2 actually works really well, I don’t really ever need to re-center. I’d prefer it stays that way.

20 hours ago, SCFG_DC said:

With regards the 109 video is he using WW2 era shoulder harness? Possibly a modern harness allows more movement.

 

I very much doubt any real fighter pilot was strapped in like a race car driver. It would have been suicidally handicapping yourself in air combat. Also a pilot is mostly pulling positive Gs so there’s no good reason to be restrained like you’re a crash test dummy. They tightened the straps for takeoff and landing, not while on patrol I’m sure. 

Share this post


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

I very much doubt any real fighter pilot was strapped in like a race car driver. It would have been suicidally handicapping yourself in air combat. Also a pilot is mostly pulling positive Gs so there’s no good reason to be restrained like you’re a crash test dummy. They tightened the straps for takeoff and landing, not while on patrol I’m sure. 

 

I just finished 'First Light'' by Geoffry Wellum, a Spitfire pilot from WW2 and specifically mentions that they had a 'mini' check list to run through when engaged. Feet into upper stirrups, shoulder straps tightened (NOT LOOSE like you postulate), engine settings to combat and gunsight on. I think there is more reading to be done on the topic but I don't think based on my readings that they flew with loose straps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [CPT]HawkeyeP said:

 

I just finished 'First Light'' by Geoffry Wellum, a Spitfire pilot from WW2 and specifically mentions that they had a 'mini' check list to run through when engaged. Feet into upper stirrups, shoulder straps tightened (NOT LOOSE like you postulate), engine settings to combat and gunsight on. I think there is more reading to be done on the topic but I don't think based on my readings that they flew with loose straps. 

Not all procedures were a good idea. You can clearly see the modern pilots who could potentially pull much more violent maneuvers, not tightly strapped down. 
Military history is full of examples where people are told to do something in training that’s a very bad idea in real combat. British pilots also flew in tight 3 ship “Vic” formations where all their attention was taken up by maintaining that formation and were unable to be aware of enemy aircraft. 

Share this post


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

Not all procedures were a good idea. You can clearly see the modern pilots who could potentially pull much more violent maneuvers, not tightly strapped down. 
Military history is full of examples where people are told to do something in training that’s a very bad idea in real combat. British pilots also flew in tight 3 ship “Vic” formations where all their attention was taken up by maintaining that formation and were unable to be aware of enemy aircraft. 

 

Come back with references to back up your arguments.  It all sounds like your own personal speculation in attempt to backup your zealot love for TiR.  (Side note, the Vic was only used till the end of Battle of Britain and was replaced with Finger four. Even then, the Vic was used in conjunction with other formations during Battle of Britain like Big Wing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, [CPT]HawkeyeP said:

Come back with references to back up your arguments.

Most pilots accounts weren’t written with the idea of solving video game arguments decades later. They lack abundant reference to the stuff people here argue constantly about. 
Look at the way cockpit designs all evolved to be full blister canopies. Why? Obviously for better visibility. 
 

This whole topic is only because some flight sim players are old guys with bad necks flying with VR scuba masks on. Trying to impose their limitations on other players. Some VR players can actually turn around and check six. Are you proposing that they strap themselves into their swiveling office chairs?

Share this post


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

This whole topic is only because some flight sim players are old guys with bad necks flying with VR scuba masks on. Trying to impose their limitations on other players. Some VR players can actually turn around and check six. Are you proposing that they strap themselves into their swiveling office chairs?

 

Mighty presumptuous of you, and an attempt to obfuscate the original topic. As always, you attempt to put words in peoples mouths that they didn't say with passive aggressive statements. 

You're still missing the point and I'm sure you'd be glad to shout about this all day. I think you could learn to be more constructive in your discussions and stop sticking your head in the sand.

Once again, Good day.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, [CPT]HawkeyeP said:

Come back with references to back up your arguments.

“Only the protective armor plate behind my head kept me from being killed by a 20mm. I used to inspect all of the aircraft, as some men would take this plate out. It reduced rearward visibility by about twenty percent, so they removed it. I ordered all the plates replaced, and I made it clear I would court-martial any man who disobeyed.”

- Johannes Steinhoff in The German Aces Speak II

 

So if their movement was so restricted why would they want to remove the armor plate behind their head? By this account it took up twenty percent of their rearward view meaning they were able to turn around quite a lot. Just about like the Biggin Hill pilot. 
Why does an armored glass headrest become available in the 109 if the pilot couldn’t turn around that far?

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the pilot are strapped in with tight harness IRL you can still turn torso and head enough to see behind you. Not "wonder woman" TiR view though. That view is completely bogus. Find a race seat with 5 point belt and strap in and test the view (not the seat where the head and helmet is enclosed on the sides) and you will find that the vision behind is fairly ok with an obfuscated arc of about 10-15 degrees behind on each side. Pilots did not want to fly with loose straps for the simple reason that they would hit the canopy potentially breaking the neck or be unconscious with unexpected manoeuvres and jolts of the plane. Also if you are "loose" the movement of the body will impede the ability to control the plane since your bottom will move in the seat causing loss of control from pedals and stick in a "bunt" situation for instance, where there is negative G. The cockpit of WW2 fighters were not that spacious and also in case of a crash you really want to be strapped in to survive. The attached file show how close to the canopy the head is in flight.

Focke-Wulf_Fw_190_050602-F-1234P-005.jpg

Edited by Goblin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have TIR limit in game , you can't move virtual head beyond 180 degree ;) , I don't mind if someday devs would do proper research and impose realistic limits. They had plans to  implement head movement based on spine  model , with already implement physical body restrictions do to acceleration this can be seen as next step in evolution of CFS.

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

implementation of a restriction like that would be very bad for us VR players in my opinion since it would probably create nausea when everything stops moving and you don't 😁

Edited by Goblin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Goblin said:

implementation of a restriction like that would be very bad for us VR players in my opinion since it would probably create nausea when everything stops moving and you don't 😁

 

It already stops when you bump into the canopy glass when playing online but we don't see complaints about nausea... Not to mention VR moves much closer to a theoretical virtual spine. 

 

You said it though, TiR allows some pretty extreme views. And I'm all for allowing the user the option of using a virtual physiology or not. Similar to how you can set the canopy to limit your head or not right now. Nothing like sticking your head outside the perspex.  I have both TiR and VR, and I use them alternately. TiR for singleplayer campaign stuff and VR for online.  

Edited by [CPT]HawkeyeP
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Most pilots accounts weren’t written with the idea of solving video game arguments decades later. They lack abundant reference to the stuff people here argue constantly about. 
Look at the way cockpit designs all evolved to be full blister canopies. Why? Obviously for better visibility. 
 

This whole topic is only because some flight sim players are old guys with bad necks flying with VR scuba masks on. Trying to impose their limitations on other players. Some VR players can actually turn around and check six. Are you proposing that they strap themselves into their swiveling office chairs?

 

I think you are misundestanding that looking behind your back is not the same as being able to do a meaningfull scan of your six o´clock. I have not doubt that you can see at your six o´clock in reality (development of buble canopy is one proof). I can do it with my VR but in doing it I have found the limits of my periferal vision. And that is the key of part of this discussion.

It is very clear in the manual of VVS I posted. It is quite clear in someone´s post about f-16 nowdays (I fighter with a magnificient buble canopy).

The key is acuity. When looking behind (at your 6) you don´t use the 10º of your central vision (even while moving your eyes balls in your sockets). You have to use peripheral vision. I put an example you can esily do at home to test it (looking at some text on your back). It is undeniable. You can see easily a contact a your 6 if is close enough but you can´t see it easily if is farther away because is blurry.

In game, with trackir or hat switch, you keep on using your 10º central vision to look at your monitor while your avatar pilot is "looking" behind. You can keep that position almost indefinitively without any phisical strain. Reality is diferent. looking at your 6 is tiring and is not so clear.

So, one point is that there is ample proof that trackir and hat switch give abilities that doesn´t exist in real life and give a boost into SA.

The other point is whether this could be simulated in pc computers. Not easily but not impossible. Is not about limiting the angle of vision but limiting the clarity of vision depending of the angle. The natural way is VR (I think that will be the norm in the future). On a monitor, One way would be some technique that makes the 20º cone both sides of your 6 o´clock a bit blurry (makes you able to see big contacts on your six o´clock but not the small ones that are a good distance away). In theory is possible but implementing it is another story. You can come across may unexpected problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It probably would have been dead and buried if it wasn't for someone's incessant desire to disagree with people's opinions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion - this is a suggestions section. They should be able to freely voice their suggestion without someone constantly arguing back till they are 'blue in the face'.  

 

It also isn't very friendly to call VR users 'old men with bad backs and necks wearing scuba masks'.  Particularly if some of those users are in their 20's and 30's with perfect health. More speculative and narrow minded claims I suppose.  

 

Gonna keep this train rolling? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, [CPT]HawkeyeP said:

 

 

Gonna keep this train rolling? 

 I'm pretty sure he was referring to the pilots of 109's during the second world war as not being old men incapable of turning their heads to check six. 

As you were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JG51_Beazil said:

 I'm pretty sure he was referring to the pilots of 109's during the second world war as not being old men incapable of turning their heads to check six. 

As you were.

 

Scroll up a bit further for the same user stating:

Quote

This whole topic is only because some flight sim players are old guys with bad necks flying with VR scuba masks on. Trying to impose their limitations on other players. Some VR players can actually turn around and check six. Are you proposing that they strap themselves into their swiveling office chairs?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even here the brat's plague is disseminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I was referring to.  It read to me like a contrast.  Of course I'm just tuning into this discussion so I will shut up and allow your conversation to continue.  Sorry for the sidebar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [CPT]HawkeyeP said:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion 

This isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact

 

B96A75F9-263E-4F8B-9D97-1C3E9026B82B.jpeg

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but us "old guys with stiff necks and scuba masks" do get that one eyed view checking our six, just sayin...
Yes I can still check my six with the "scuba mask" even though the peripheral blockage makes it a challenge passing 50+ in age 🤣

Edited by Goblin

Share this post


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

This isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact

 

 

You keep posting a picture of Red 7, which has no headrest of any sort, glass or metal... while flying airshow passes (READ: Not combat). He is looking vertical out the top of the canopy and not out the sides. Based on that image, I think that still falls within a valid position for a modeled spine. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. This isn't the sort of position or visibility that we are arguing against. You obviously don't understand and are not even trying to understand.  Carry on shouting at clouds. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

There’s no way to simulate this effect on a 2D monitor so why worry about it?

 

I am not worry at all. It was only an addendum to the limitations. The main point still stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, [CPT]HawkeyeP said:

 

You keep posting a picture of Red 7, which has no headrest of any sort, glass or metal... while flying airshow passes (READ: Not combat). He is looking vertical out the top of the canopy and not out the sides. Based on that image, I think that still falls within a valid position for a modeled spine. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. This isn't the sort of position or visibility that we are arguing against. You obviously don't understand and are not even trying to understand.  Carry on shouting at clouds. 

No kidding. Why do you think 109 pilots were tempted to remove the armor? If he can look back that far up he can certainly look sideways. I’m all in favor of modeling the head & spine movement correctly too like in DCS, it actually makes checking six easier. 
Why would an air show pilot be any less concerned about awareness and safety than a combat pilot? If he looses control of the aircraft or collides with another plane he’s just as dead. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the wheels come full circle.  Original IL-2 not only had gimbal limits to track IR, but the snaps, pans, and mouse view was hard coded limited also.  You couldn't achieve a full six view, and the up view was impossible to exceed 90 degrees, there was no up beyond that.  It all collapsed when Oleg's team refined the integration and smoothness of trackIR natively in a patch and accidentally removed all the limits only for trackIR.  By than there were so many TIR users, when the attempt came to fix it back a full blown riot erupted.  Solution was unlock the limits for all and equalize the playing field.  After that a tiny fanatical group attempted to force naturalpoint into imposing the limits back in on its end, never happened, they wanted to continue brisk sales which exploded.  I was on the beta team at the time of the great TIR wars.  

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...