head movement

[Pupo]

i've done a few maneuvers in the past ( no more than 4G/-1.5's), tough your head shakes you naturally cna compasate to keep your head focused on one place, with the eye compasating thingy. I think excessive headshake would be a counter-nature thing, tough i agree ROF is a bit to stiff.

[steppenwolf]

No, just no. HMMWVs vibrate the worst, through the whole body of the vehicle, and while it can be felt it can't be seen. The hood itself can be seen to vibrate if it's stared at, but no - the eyes do not vibrate/shake/convulge/seizure/have Parkinson's.

I understand your point. I like the look of it though, ever since I first saw some of Jafa's IL2 videos I've wanted that effect in a sim. The way I see it - warmed up engines, icons, unlimited ammo, etc, don't happen in reality either, but there they are in our games. You don't have to use them, but it's nice to have them as an option.

[crossfade]

Gavagai, fully with you regarding coordinated maneuvers. Quite strangely, this is not done correctly in an otherwise very respectable sim, DCS. But they give you the choice to switch it off, at least. One other thing to consider: to the human eye in a cockpit, vibrations or movements from G-forces appear completely different than for a camera. Being in the situation, you compensate for many if not most of the movements, retaining a continuous and non shaky image of the world. Think running, and the recording of that run with a headcam. So, to do this well is not so easy.

 

Less is more...

 

MAC

Good point about the eye m8 see below for a feathered example

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hBpF_Zj4OA

 

The reason the owls head does not move is because it cannot move it's eyes like a human our eyes and neck compensate for these movements unless they are extreme.

[MACADEMIC]

Wow, amazing image stabilisation by nature! Here one of the other kind...

 

MAC

 

http://gizmodo.com/5993678/this-new-camera-stabilizer-could-change-cinematography-forever

[crossfade]

That is wicked 

[GP*]

I think there's a bit of misunderstanding here regarding the effect that G force have on the body, particularly when it comes to simulating "head shake" or anything along those lines.

 

G forces, whether applied smoothly or with rapid onset, merely compress the body, rather than shake it all around. Most guys in modern fighters fly with their seat slightly higher on BFM sorties so that, under G, their sitting height slumps to the "design eye" height of the HUD. Simply put: G compresses you into the seat at a rate and magnitude commensurate with G onset and how many Gs you're pulling -- and this is something you'd certainly see with your eyes.

 

On the other hand, things that do cause significant "shake" in high performance aircraft are, most noticeably, the increase in buffet levels as an aircraft approaches stall -- whether due to lack of flying airspeed or by exceeding the wings lift limit rough maneuvering (aka an accelerated stall). However, as most have mentioned, your eyes do a wonderful job of compensating this, and you feel it far more in your body (the seat, the stick...hell, even the glare shield) than you perceive it with your eyes. Not to say that you don't see it at all, it's just that you use your other senses to detect it far more than your eyes.

 

Now, maneuvers such as rapid rolls are far more violent. I've smacked my head on the canopy plenty of times in the overhead pattern alone -- usually when some dude in the front seat is trying to "wax his ass" in the pattern and rolls with full lateral stick into the break. Looks cool, but it hurts if you aren't ready! Your eyes will most certainly see this...but once again, if you're prepared, both your body and eyes will compensate...

 

Hope this helps clear up any confusion / speculation.

[MACADEMIC]

Thanks for this Prefontaine, interesting to read your real life experience.

 

Good observation unexpected sideloads would have a much greater effect on crewmembers not at the controls, especially facing rearwards, such as a gunner. The guy at the controls has the chance to anticipate and compensate. So this effect could be shown more pronounced on the other crewmembers. Important however as mentioned eariler on is to model this purely based on the load vector total, not as in other simulations where the head always swings to the outside of the turn as if this was a car simulation. True, most people's life experience would anticipate this, but it's not correct. More likely when entering a turn is a slightly slipped condition, with the ball initially on the inside of the turn until the turn becomes stabilized and coordinated. Also, no problem making the dashboard shaking in buffetting conditions, this is a good effect and works in sims, as long as the outside world doesn't start shaking.

 

MAC

[Zak]

Wow, amazing image stabilisation by nature! Here one of the other kind...

 

MAC

 

http://gizmodo.com/5993678/this-new-camera-stabilizer-could-change-cinematography-forever

This thing hypnotized half of the studio. MAC, don't make us postpone launch!

[steppenwolf]

I think the effect of POV movement(to simulate engine vibration, rough taxiing, Gs, etc.) is akin to the effect of being wounded in ROF. It's a 2D 'visual cue' used to suggest and reinforce a real world experience through the use of a visual effect which doesn't necessarily happen in real life. When we are hurt our peripheral vision does not turn red and we don't see blood splatters in front of us, but this particular visual cue is used to suggest the experience of being wounded in games like ROF. To me the effect of POV movement is just the same kind of thing. It's a visual effect used to suggest something we can not feel through a computer, however unnatural the visual effect itself might seem. And on a second note, these kind of effects might also be useful to gamers who like to make movies but who don't have access to professional editing software. One could make nice looking videos with 'cinematic quality' by simply using Fraps and Windows Movie Maker.

[Bearcat]

Wow.. I looked at the entire video .. That is a film making game changer ..

[RAF74_Winger]

I understand your point. I like the look of it though, ever since I first saw some of Jafa's IL2 videos I've wanted that effect in a sim. The way I see it - warmed up engines, icons, unlimited ammo, etc, don't happen in reality either, but there they are in our games. You don't have to use them, but it's nice to have them as an option.

 

Bit late to the party, but I have to agree with the other pilots here, my experience in several hundred hours of aerobatics is that the head movement just isn't noticeable. Rise of Flight has the pilot head movement just about right in my opinion. One of the greatest annoyances in CloD is that the pilot appears to have a broken neck; way overdone and completely kills any sense of immersion in the sim.

 

Prefontaine has a point about the movement of the head in rolling manoeuvres, but this only really happens in aircraft with very high rollrates - towards 300°/s. None of the aircraft in this sim have roll rates even close to that, see this chart: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

 

W.

[gavagai]

"Notice" is different than whether it's actually happening.  If you want to suggest that the flight sim should simulate your perception and not the physics of what actually happens, then that is another proposal.  The brain learns and accustoms itself to all manner of unnatural motions.  What seems to happen in flight sims with liberal head movement is that the stationary setting of the chair and room around us makes it very difficult to have the same psychological compensation that occurs in a moving cockpit in a real aircraft.

 

Anyway, I am dismayed to hear you say that you like the head movement in Rise of Flight.  In my opinion, its absence makes gunnery childishly easy throughout the most violent maneuvers.

Edited August 10, 2013 by gavagai

[steppenwolf]

Bit late to the party, but I have to agree with the other pilots here, my experience in several hundred hours of aerobatics is that the head movement just isn't noticeable. Rise of Flight has the pilot head movement just about right in my opinion. One of the greatest annoyances in CloD is that the pilot appears to have a broken neck; way overdone and completely kills any sense of immersion in the sim.

 

Prefontaine has a point about the movement of the head in rolling manoeuvres, but this only really happens in aircraft with very high rollrates - towards 300°/s. None of the aircraft in this sim have roll rates even close to that, see this chart: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

 

W.

Hello Winger. Sorry to sound repetivtive here, but as I tried to say above, the movement applied to the POV that I'm thinking of is a 'visual cue', an effect. It's not supposed to copy real physics. Its purpose would be to add intensity through the manipulation of the POV for affect only.

[Sokol1]

What should by include in BoS is the old il-2 pilot running of plane - this alow movies makers tell many stories. 

 

 

 

Sokol1

 

 

[RAF74_Winger]

"Notice" is different than whether it's actually happening.  If you want to suggest that the flight sim should simulate your perception and not the physics of what actually happens, then that is another proposal.  The brain learns and accustoms itself to all manner of unnatural motions.  What seems to happen in flight sims with liberal head movement is that the stationary setting of the chair and room around us makes it very difficult to have the same psychological compensation that occurs in a moving cockpit in a real aircraft.

 

Anyway, I am dismayed to hear you say that you like the head movement in Rise of Flight.  In my opinion, its absence makes gunnery childishly easy throughout the most violent maneuvers.

 

 

Hello Winger. Sorry to sound repetivtive here, but as I tried to say above, the movement applied to the POV that I'm thinking of is a 'visual cue', an effect. It's not supposed to copy real physics. Its purpose would be to add intensity through the manipulation of the POV for affect only.

 

 

Thanks for the replies gents. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you both. Adding intensity or making things more difficult than they should be will move BoS out of the realm of simulation, making it more of an arcade game in my view.

 

In CloD we saw such nonsense: The ridiculous bouncing instruments, the changing of FFB forces with true airspeed instead of indicated, terrible ground handling and the creaking of airframes under load in addition to the bobblehead POV changes. All due to the developer's wish to make the game more 'realistic' and for me at least, completely breaking any immersion in the game or sense that I might be piloting a real aircraft.

 

I hope these errors will not be repeated here, I believe they have no place in a simulation.

 

W.

[gavagai]

Hi Winger,

 

Let's take something that is not under dispute.  In inverted flight, the pilot's whole body shifts upward toward the top of the canopy.  You can see that very well in the F-16 video I posted, and it is more movement than what you get with your PoV while flying inverted in RoF.  Should it or shouldn't it be simulated in a sim like BoS?  Do you say "no" because you don't notice the change when you are flying?

Edited August 11, 2013 by gavagai

[GP*]

Prefontaine has a point about the movement of the head in rolling manoeuvres, but this only really happens in aircraft with very high rollrates - towards 300°/s. None of the aircraft in this sim have roll rates even close to that, see this chart: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

 

W.

That makes sense, thanks for the addition.

[Matze81]

Hi Winger,

 

Let's take something that is not under dispute.  In inverted flight, the pilot's whole body shifts upward toward the top of the canopy.  You can see that very well in the F-16 video I posted, and it is more movement than what you get with your PoV while flying inverted in RoF.  Should it or shouldn't it be simulated in a sim like BoS?  Do you say "no" because you don't notice the change when you are flying?

 

Obviously I'm not speaking for Winger here, but basically a Sim could and maybe should simulate any POV change that wouldn't be compensated by human vision in real life. But that's easier said then done, I assume. So, if in doubt a developer should be conservative and lean towards the "less is more" side of the head shake modelling!

 

As for your example: If a pilot were to fly inverted (level!) then I would say yes, there's a shift in POV, which could be simulated convincingly in a Sim. Other situations could be: Quick high G-onset and high roll rates.

 

But that doesn't take anything away from what Winger said. He got it right, if you ask me. My previous argument went in a similar direction. The problem is, that CloD's Head Shake is just too much, because even when you make only small roll inputs everything starts moving, which is just not what you perceive in real life.

 

I mentioned that I don't have much RoF experience, but I can tell you that during those few hours with RoF I never got this awkward feeling, I got right away the first time I played CloD with Head Shake enabled. I think RoF might lack some POV changes that could be simulated convincingly (like the inverted level flight), but it also lacks the unrealistic head movement of CloD. And I think that might be a reason why people like Winger and myself might prefer the RoF version over the CloD version.

 

Concerning the head shake issue, for a player with real flying experience, I guess you could say: The "under-modelling" of a realistic effect is less of an immersion-breaker than the "over-modelling" of an unrealistic one.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Matze81

[RAF74_Winger]

Hi Winger,

 

Let's take something that is not under dispute.  In inverted flight, the pilot's whole body shifts upward toward the top of the canopy.  You can see that very well in the F-16 video I posted, and it is more movement than what you get with your PoV while flying inverted in RoF.  Should it or shouldn't it be simulated in a sim like BoS?  Do you say "no" because you don't notice the change when you are flying?

 

I had to go and check this in RoF as I haven't spent a lot of time under negative G in that sim for obvious reasons. There appears to be no head movement at all at minus 1G as you hang in the straps, this should be corrected. The head movement as more negative g is applied seems to match that of positive G, but it's hard to tell as these aircraft aren't capable of pushing as much G as they can pull (asymmetric aerofoils, limited negative elevator authority).

 

W.

[RAF74_Winger]

Cross-posted with Matze81 there, but this really hammers home the point:

 

Concerning the head shake issue, for a player with real flying experience, I guess you could say: The "under-modelling" of a realistic effect is less of an immersion-breaker than the "over-modelling" of an unrealistic one.

 

W.

[gavagai]

Ok, thanks for your feedback Winger and Matze.  Interestingly, SmokinHole just posted at DCS about how he likes the head movement in their P-51.  So there's a professional pilot with a very different take on the issue.  To save you the trouble, he wrote:

 

 

At various points over the last year ED has gradually improved the effect of lateral accelerations acting on the pilot's head. It is now just about perfect. In every other sim I have played I have brought this up as a glaring oversight. Players complain about FMs and clickable cockpits yet gladly accept that their heads are locked in front of the gunsight or HUD. When I brought up this inconsistancy with reality, the "other" sim countered that players hated involuntary head movement because of the adverse effects it has on their gunnery. Well...yeah?! Of course it impacts gunnery! Just as it does and did in real life. My real head has bounced off my real canopy a number of times. Now it does in the P-51 as well. It is a superbly done bit of immersion and you guys should be congratulated.

 

It was an interesting discussion, but at this point I don't have much more to contribute.  I'll leave you to argue with Smokin and I will look on eagerly.

[Matze81]

Ok, thanks for your feedback Winger and Matze.  Interestingly, SmokinHole just posted at DCS about how he likes the head movement in their P-51.  So there's a professional pilot with a very different take on the issue. 

 

It was an interesting discussion, but at this point I don't have much more to contribute.  I'll leave you to argue with Smokin and I will look on eagerly.

 

I never tried the DCS P-51, so I don't have an opinion about the way they implemented the head shake there. I checked out some YouTube videos, but that's not really enough.

Yep, it is/was an interesting discussion. I hope you don't have any hard feelings, mate!

 

 

Cross-posted with Matze81 there, but this really hammers home the point:

Concerning the head shake issue, for a player with real flying experience, I guess you could say: The "under-modelling" of a realistic effect is less of an immersion-breaker than the "over-modelling" of an unrealistic one.

W.

 

Thanks man! Appreciate it! There was a bright light bulb over my head, when I came up with that!

[MACADEMIC]

Have a look at this video. Not much head shaking going on at all, I doubt the pilot would have taken much notice. Interesting moment at 7:20, a very rapid steep turn entry to the left, head quickly swings left first and promptly bounces back center.

 

MAC

 

[leitmotiv]

To me the way this is simulated in RoF is to stiff almost no movement, in IL2 1946 is good balanced, in ColD is too much.

But with use of TrackIR i really don't think about it, it's playable in all three games, with different profiles. The ting i like in CloD is the zoom, its not like in RoF and IL21946 where it seams like you have binocular in your head and can do high zoom. 

[steppenwolf]

I guess we will just be divided on this one. It has been a good thread though.  

[Finkeren]

I honestly think, that the sim should model head movement based on how the head of a pilot actually moves during maneuvers. I don't care if the eyes naturally compensate. We don't have full binocular depth perception modeled either, so it won't be "realistic" anyway. I would like the extra immersion that comes from not having your FOV completely steady at all times. If G-forces move a pilots head, it should move in-game FOV. If vibrations in the aircraft causes a pilots head to shake, then it should be there too. There are lots of video material of pilots filming themselves in the cockpit, so it should not be hard to model the effects with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

 

For me it's purely about immersion. I actually think it will have a fairly small impact on the overall "difficulty" of lining up a shot. With the exception of the Il-2 rear gunner, every aircraft in Il2-BoS will be equipped with a reflector sight, which means that it takes significant head movement to throw off your aim, that's the whole point of having reflector sights, right?

Edited August 11, 2013 by Finkeren

[gavagai]

Have a look at this video. Not much head shaking going on at all, I doubt the pilot would have taken much notice. Interesting moment at 7:20, a very rapid steep turn entry to the left, head quickly swings left first and promptly bounces back center.

 

MAC

 

 

That was the pilot throwing his whole body into the turn in order to counter the roll axis acceleration he was about to experience...certainly redefines the meaning of "not noticing."

[steppenwolf]

Nice video Gavagai. That dude seems to be taking pretty deep breathes, that would also be a cool thing to simulate with sound and visual cues.

[Finkeren]

Have a look at this video. Not much head shaking going on at all, I doubt the pilot would have taken much notice. Interesting moment at 7:20, a very rapid steep turn entry to the left, head quickly swings left first and promptly bounces back center.

 

MAC

 

Not much shaking going on? Did you watch the taxi and take off? Did you skip the low flying at the end? That dude obviously knows how to counter the forces he's subject to, and still he's shifting around like Michael J. Fox.

[steppenwolf]

I know we got our two camps here, but this video is pretty nice. It really shows how bumpy things can get. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq7dqIHsH3k

 

BTW, I'm copying and pasting URL but still only get a link here. What's the trick to get the videos in post?

[arjisme]

My question to the real pilots who have commented here and said they don't readily notice head movements. Are you guys ever lining up something like a crosshair on a target while executing rapid or heavy maneuvers?

[ImPeRaToR]

I think there's a bit of misunderstanding here regarding the effect that G force have on the body, particularly when it comes to simulating "head shake" or anything along those lines.

 

G forces, whether applied smoothly or with rapid onset, merely compress the body, rather than shake it all around. Most guys in modern fighters fly with their seat slightly higher on BFM sorties so that, under G, their sitting height slumps to the "design eye" height of the HUD. Simply put: G compresses you into the seat at a rate and magnitude commensurate with G onset and how many Gs you're pulling -- and this is something you'd certainly see with your eyes.

 

On the other hand, things that do cause significant "shake" in high performance aircraft are, most noticeably, the increase in buffet levels as an aircraft approaches stall -- whether due to lack of flying airspeed or by exceeding the wings lift limit rough maneuvering (aka an accelerated stall). However, as most have mentioned, your eyes do a wonderful job of compensating this, and you feel it far more in your body (the seat, the stick...hell, even the glare shield) than you perceive it with your eyes. Not to say that you don't see it at all, it's just that you use your other senses to detect it far more than your eyes.

 

Now, maneuvers such as rapid rolls are far more violent. I've smacked my head on the canopy plenty of times in the overhead pattern alone -- usually when some dude in the front seat is trying to "wax his ass" in the pattern and rolls with full lateral stick into the break. Looks cool, but it hurts if you aren't ready! Your eyes will most certainly see this...but once again, if you're prepared, both your body and eyes will compensate...

 

Hope this helps clear up any confusion / speculation.

 

Funny, that's what I did for all ROF planes too

[GP*]

My question to the real pilots who have commented here and said they don't readily notice head movements. Are you guys ever lining up something like a crosshair on a target while executing rapid or heavy maneuvers?

Sort of. The problem with someone like me trying to comment about head shake and its modeling when it comes to WWII era fighters is that everything I say is merely based on my own experience...which has nothing to do with old warbirds (I wish). But to try to offer whatever insight I can, let me humbly offer this: even while trying to line up another dynamically moving target in a gunsight, your eyes do a pretty damn good job compensating. Your body, however, certainly will feel the effects...but unfortunately there's no way we can hope to model this. It's a tough question to answer, because all that I can really contribute is based on what I "feel" is happening -- and we all know that human reports based on feel can be quite inaccurate.

 

I'll try to simplify the point I've been trying to make.

-maneuvering will always have an impact on the body, regardless of the axis

-the movement of your body can vary wildly based on the magnitude of the maneuver

-the "seat of the pants feel" is your greatest source of feedback for what's happening with the aircraft (when it comes to human senses)

-your eyes, while they can sense this change (especially in the periphery), do a wonderful job of damping this out. I suspect a lot of this has to do with the fact that, especially when gunning, a pilot is focused heavily on his intended target

-what forces have the greatest effect on MOVING your body (and consequently your vision)? in my experience:

1) rapid onset lateral G

2) heavy buffet, as in when the aircraft is on the verge of a stall (although with fly by wire jets, this hardly exists anymore)

3) shooting the gun (again, this could be far more or less violent depending on the platform)

4) negative G

5) positive G

 

Notice that I didn't say what impacts the body (as a whole) the most. In that case, heavy positive G is by far the winner -- it is both painful and exhausting, and will crush you if you're not ready.

 

Now, enough from me and back to BOS. I'm honestly torn when it comes to how to model this in a sim. Obviously you don't want an entirely static environment where there's no moving, but you don't want the kind of head shake I've seen in videos of CLoD (I never bought that sim to be fair). I might get flamed for this, but in all honesty...IL2 makes a pretty good compromise in my opinion, and it has never detracted from my immersion when playing.

[RAF74_Winger]

My question to the real pilots who have commented here and said they don't readily notice head movements. Are you guys ever lining up something like a crosshair on a target while executing rapid or heavy maneuvers?

 

During aerobatics you're very often using a sighting device like the one shown here, or lining up some part of the cowling to ensure the correct pitch attitude.

 

[GP*]

During aerobatics you're very often using a sighting device like the one shown here, or lining up some part of the cowling to ensure the correct pitch attitude.

 

Cool stuff man! That must be a blast

[steppenwolf]

Okay, for those that don't think POV movement is a good way of expressing what a pilot might 'feel', what other ways could 'feeling' be modeled?

[RAF74_Winger]

Ok, thanks for your feedback Winger and Matze.  Interestingly, SmokinHole just posted at DCS about how he likes the head movement in their P-51.  So there's a professional pilot with a very different take on the issue.  To save you the trouble, he wrote:

 

 

 

It was an interesting discussion, but at this point I don't have much more to contribute.  I'll leave you to argue with Smokin and I will look on eagerly.

 

Not sure when the change he wrote about was implemented, but I looked at the latest youtube videos I could find and the head movement in those seems to be reasonable, though I'd have to experience it in the game to make a proper assessment. Also, if he's hitting his head on the canopy that often he's too close to it or the straps aren't tight enough - a rough rule of thumb is that there should enough room between the top of your head and the canopy for your fist to go between the two.

 

That was the pilot throwing his whole body into the turn in order to counter the roll axis acceleration he was about to experience...certainly redefines the meaning of "not noticing."

 

The F/A-18 has an instantaneous roll rate of about 720°/s, that is certainly going to move your head, especially when wearing a flying helmet.

 

W.

[Finkeren]

Also, if he's hitting his head on the canopy that often he's too close to it or the straps aren't tight enough - a rough rule of thumb is that there should enough room between the top of your head and the canopy for your fist to go between the two.

Good luck getting that much head room in a Bf 109.

[RAF74_Winger]

Okay, for those that don't think POV movement is a good way of expressing what a pilot might 'feel', what other ways could 'feeling' be modeled?

 

Simple answer is a good FFB joystick, and good FFB implementation in the game. RoF does an excellent job of communicating the state of the aircraft through FFB, so I'm quite confident that BoS will be as good if not better. Ultimately though, without directly stimulating the vestibular system you're never going to get the 'feeling' of flight without getting into an aeroplane and flying it.

 

Found an interesting article on Wikipedia about the vestibulo-ocular reflex btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibulo-ocular_reflex

 

W.

[gavagai]

Not sure when the change he wrote about was implemented, but I looked at the latest youtube videos I could find and the head movement in those seems to be reasonable, though I'd have to experience it in the game to make a proper assessment. Also, if he's hitting his head on the canopy that often he's too close to it or the straps aren't tight enough - a rough rule of thumb is that there should enough room between the top of your head and the canopy for your fist to go between the two.

 

 

The F/A-18 has an instantaneous roll rate of about 720°/s, that is certainly going to move your head, especially when wearing a flying helmet.

 

W.

 

Yes, I understand that.  My comment was directed at the video being evidence that the pilot didn't notice.

 

Not all of the DCS P-51 videos on youtube have head movement enabled.  Compared to Clod, there is less side-to-side movement, but the camera still rolls a bit, and you definitely fall up into your straps under negative g.

 

Interestingly enough, the Horsemen tested out the DCS P-51 and were very positive about it.  Trackir was disabled because of sunlight, but head shake and all other "realism" options were enabled.  I asked specifically if they had comments about head movement in the sim, but it might not have been brought up: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=111388

 

Sorry for so many references to the DCS P-51, but it seems relevant to the discussion because Loft said that he wants BoS to match DCS level fidelity but without the procedural stuff.