Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

modeling the pilot's experience of a headshake is a very complex task. In order to grasp some of the difficulties involved you should first try to understand some of the basic neurophysiological functions underlying ocular-movement / head movement coordination. There is a neurology subspecialty dedicated just to this theme, so you can imagine how complex this system is. I am a neurologist who has also served some time as a physician for airforce pilots, so I 'll try to put it as simply as possible for you to understand :

 

There are 3 basic (lets stick to them for now) oculomotor (meaning: eye-moving) systems in the Central Nervous System. Each of them serves a different function. For all systems consider always if the head is static or moving. The reason that the reference point for oculomotor systems is sometimes the head, is because it contains the labyrinths (parts of the inner ear). Each labyrinth (one in each ear) is a highly specialised organ that detects head position(static-relative to gravity) and head acceleration (in each of the 3 spatial axis). So each time the head moves, the labyrinths inside detect this movement and directly inform the brain of what 's going on so as to coordinate where to look and how to maintain balance.

So, back to the 3 systems :

 

1. The smooth pursuit system : this gets involved when the the head is static and the eyes are fixated at a SLOWLY moving target. i.e. when you fly in a straight line in autopilot, and you see a distant aircraft slowly moving away to the horizon. This system is very slow in terms of ocular speed. It is interesting that nobody can voluntarily do a slow continuous eye movement (i.e. from left to right) without having a moving target to fixate (try it for your self). He can only make a series of small, quick ocular "jumps", which are called saccades, and take us to the next system.

 

2. The saccadic system : this system is responsible for QUICK ocular movements, whose purpose is to bring a peripheral target to the central vision. I.e. if you are flying a plane in a straight line, and you catch an object in your peripheral field, you make a sudden ocular movement (coordinated with head movement if the object is in the extreme parts of the peripheral field) and you are now fixated at this object. Fixation means that the light from the object is centered at the fovea, a minute part (1.5mm diameter) of the retina that is responsible for central vision. Saccades are very quick in nature, with a velocity that can exceed 500 degrees/sec (meaning that if our eyes could rotate fully 360 degrees, with saccades we would be able to make 1.5-2 full circles in a second. Pilots also use their saccades to quickly change fixation on different targets, or quickly glance at their instruments.

 

3. The vestibulo-ocular system (or VOR). This is probably the most important and relevant to flight sims system. This system functions when the HEAD IS MOVING so that the eyes can MAKE A COUNTERACTIVE MOVEMENT in order to KEEP THE TARGET FIXATED. This is an extremely fast system (i can't  cite degrees, but it is faster than the saccadic) and extremely vital for life and balance. Nature has optimized this so well, because it was evolutionary crucial. Imagine a lion spotting a deer : at first from far away, it sees the deer slowly moving, using the smooth pursuit system; then, as the lion slowly approaches hiding, the deer gets alerted and starts to run. The lion proceeds on a wild hunt. Its head is moving wildly up, down, diagonally, laterally, in every axis and at tremendous speed. Yet its eyes remaing fixated perfectly at the deer. If it weren't for this system, the result it would get, would be the one we see from having a camera on top of its head. You can hardly make anything out of such a video without motion compensation algorithms, can you? Yet, the VOR does this motion compensation for us. If we lose it (as sometimes happens in people who have damage in both their ears), we wouldn't even be able to walk without getting a shaky vision (a term called oscillopsia). It would be debilitating.

 

This is the system that we use in TrackIR. When we move our head, the camera detects the head motion and moves the image, but our eyes always keep fixated at the same spot of screen, constantly counteracting our head. However, in oculus rift i presume it should be different : although the machine detects head movement, the player's eyes are kept looking straight at the screen (maybe with very minor movements of a few degrees). This means that players using oculus would have to use another function, called VOR suppression. 

 

So, modelling "shaky" vision, is a very complex task, because one has to bear in mind a lot of the above parameters. Pilots use  all 3 oculomotor systems all the time, and the latter 2 especially in a dogfight.Head movement is limitied by G forces, but eye movement is particularly robust, meaning that pilots would have the "ocular strength" to keep tracking a target only with their eyes, even if they cant rotate their neck i.e. to look up. In order for a pilot to get a "shaky vision" in reality, this would mean that head movement would have to overcome the VOR's capabilities. This should mean a vibration of the airframe, that would have to be transmitted though the body to the head, at a frequency and axis that the eyes cannot compensate. The direction of the vibration (i.e. along the Y axis or the Z axis, or at a mixed axis) would make a difference in oculomotor compensation ability; and also bear in mind that each vibration may elicit a slight rotatory head movement which further complicates things. Practically, any high frequency vibration that is robust enough would elicit some degree of shaky vision. But quantification of these parameters is a daunting task, because it involves an integrative knoweldge of the neurophysiology behind it. Don't assume that when a pilot helmet camera vibrates, the pilot's vision vibrates as well. 

It is a lot more complex. In the end, i 'd think that getting an expert fighter pilot's opinion would be the most practical approach for modelling such a thing.

 

i hope i haven't tired you

 

cheers

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

Good question. Obviously, not modeling anything is no more realistic than exaggerating any effects. And that's why I attempted to make it clear in my last post that I was describing 1) my actual experiences and "feels" for those who were interested to know and 2) how we can come to a compromise WRT modeling head shake to find a balance between pilot accounts that you read here and in other sources and the actual physics of what is going on in the aircraft, and their relationship to the human body. Perhaps I could have done a better job in explaining myself before, though.

 

But like I mentioned previously, I personally think IL-2 does a pretty reasonable job. Also, you've now seen some people praise DCS P-51 for its attempt to model head shake -- I don't have any experience in that game, so I can't comment, but others clearly like it. Also, while I don't have a FFB stick, other "feel" indicators I use in IL-2 to detect energy gaining, sustaining, or depleting maneuvers (more specifically, "pulls" ie how much aft stick is being applied) is sound, to elaborate on your question. 

 

Long story short, to keep this thread positive and on the right track, I think we're all working together here to try to find a user experience in-game that will account for all the forces that fall under the label of "head shake" without making it excessive. And I think we have some good, and bad, examples from which to learn from. 

Guys,

 

modeling the pilot's experience of a headshake is a very complex task. In order to grasp some of the difficulties involved you should first try to understand some of the basic neurophysiological functions underlying ocular-movement / head movement coordination. There is a neurology subspecialty dedicated just to this theme, so you can imagine how complex this system is. I am a neurologist who has also served some time as a physician for airforce pilots, so I 'll try to put it as simply as possible for you to understand :

 

There are 3 basic (lets stick to them for now) oculomotor (meaning: eye-moving) systems in the Central Nervous System. Each of them serves a different function. For all systems consider always if the head is static or moving. The reason that the reference point for oculomotor systems is sometimes the head, is because it contains the labyrinths (parts of the inner ear). Each labyrinth (one in each ear) is a highly specialised organ that detects head position(static-relative to gravity) and head acceleration (in each of the 3 spatial axis). So each time the head moves, the labyrinths inside detect this movement and directly inform the brain of what 's going on so as to coordinate where to look and how to maintain balance.

So, back to the 3 systems :

 

1. The smooth pursuit system : this gets involved when the the head is static and the eyes are fixated at a SLOWLY moving target. i.e. when you fly in a straight line in autopilot, and you see a distant aircraft slowly moving away to the horizon. This system is very slow in terms of ocular speed. It is interesting that nobody can voluntarily do a slow continuous eye movement (i.e. from left to right) without having a moving target to fixate (try it for your self). He can only make a series of small, quick ocular "jumps", which are called saccades, and take us to the next system.

 

2. The saccadic system : this system is responsible for QUICK ocular movements, whose purpose is to bring a peripheral target to the central vision. I.e. if you are flying a plane in a straight line, and you catch an object in your peripheral field, you make a sudden ocular movement (coordinated with head movement if the object is in the extreme parts of the peripheral field) and you are now fixated at this object. Fixation means that the light from the object is centered at the fovea, a minute part (1.5mm diameter) of the retina that is responsible for central vision. Saccades are very quick in nature, with a velocity that can exceed 500 degrees/sec (meaning that if our eyes could rotate fully 360 degrees, with saccades we would be able to make 1.5-2 full circles in a second. Pilots also use their saccades to quickly change fixation on different targets, or quickly glance at their instruments.

 

3. The vestibulo-ocular system (or VOR). This is probably the most important and relevant to flight sims system. This system functions when the HEAD IS MOVING so that the eyes can MAKE A COUNTERACTIVE MOVEMENT in order to KEEP THE TARGET FIXATED. This is an extremely fast system (i can't  cite degrees, but it is faster than the saccadic) and extremely vital for life and balance. Nature has optimized this so well, because it was evolutionary crucial. Imagine a lion spotting a deer : at first from far away, it sees the deer slowly moving, using the smooth pursuit system; then, as the lion slowly approaches hiding, the deer gets alerted and starts to run. The lion proceeds on a wild hunt. Its head is moving wildly up, down, diagonally, laterally, in every axis and at tremendous speed. Yet its eyes remaing fixated perfectly at the deer. If it weren't for this system, the result it would get, would be the one we see from having a camera on top of its head. You can hardly make anything out of such a video without motion compensation algorithms, can you? Yet, the VOR does this motion compensation for us. If we lose it (as sometimes happens in people who have damage in both their ears), we wouldn't even be able to walk without getting a shaky vision (a term called oscillopsia). It would be debilitating.

 

This is the system that we use in TrackIR. When we move our head, the camera detects the head motion and moves the image, but our eyes always keep fixated at the same spot of screen, constantly counteracting our head. However, in oculus rift i presume it should be different : although the machine detects head movement, the player's eyes are kept looking straight at the screen (maybe with very minor movements of a few degrees). This means that players using oculus would have to use another function, called VOR suppression. 

 

So, modelling "shaky" vision, is a very complex task, because one has to bear in mind a lot of the above parameters. Pilots use  all 3 oculomotor systems all the time, and the latter 2 especially in a dogfight.Head movement is limitied by G forces, but eye movement is particularly robust, meaning that pilots would have the "ocular strength" to keep tracking a target only with their eyes, even if they cant rotate their neck i.e. to look up. In order for a pilot to get a "shaky vision" in reality, this would mean that head movement would have to overcome the VOR's capabilities. This should mean a vibration of the airframe, that would have to be transmitted though the body to the head, at a frequency and axis that the eyes cannot compensate. The direction of the vibration (i.e. along the Y axis or the Z axis, or at a mixed axis) would make a difference in oculomotor compensation ability; and also bear in mind that each vibration may elicit a slight rotatory head movement which further complicates things. Practically, any high frequency vibration that is robust enough would elicit some degree of shaky vision. But quantification of these parameters is a daunting task, because it involves an integrative knoweldge of the neurophysiology behind it. Don't assume that when a pilot helmet camera vibrates, the pilot's vision vibrates as well. 

It is a lot more complex. In the end, i 'd think that getting an expert fighter pilot's opinion would be the most practical approach for modelling such a thing.

 

i hope i haven't tired you

 

cheers

 

Damn, all those big words bring back Phase I nightmares! Thanks for that ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My question to the real pilots who have commented here and said they don't readily notice head movements.

 

Like mentioned before: Some maneuvers / forces do cause a noticable change in POV. Gavagai's inverted flight example for instance, high g-onset as well as high roll rates (Winger, Prefontaine, Myself). But most of the smaller, less violent movements are not noticed (eye compensation), especially when focusing on a target (like Prefontaine also mentioned) and don't throw off your aim.

 

Are you guys ever lining up something like a crosshair on a target while executing rapid or heavy maneuvers?

 

Yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, all those big words bring back Phase I nightmares! Thanks for that ;)

 

 

i hope the docs at your unit weren't too hard during phase I prefontaine. When i served as flight school physician I looked after the boys as if they were my own children, especially during their exam periods ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i hope the docs at your unit weren't too hard during phase I prefontaine. When i served as flight school physician I looked after the boys as if they were my own children, especially during their exam periods ;)

 

I heard that the rule of thumb for the flight surgeon is to multiply by 3 the number of drinks a pilot reports he drinks per week. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i hope the docs at your unit weren't too hard during phase I prefontaine. When i served as flight school physician I looked after the boys as if they were my own children, especially during their exam periods ;)

 

Then you were a saint! The physio portion of Phase I was pretty great actually, lots of interesting stuff and dragging your buddies through mud as they tried to disconnect from their risers is always fun. But I'd have to say yes -- we definitely got the help when we needed it thanks to docs like you ;) 

 

x3 rule -- valid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I know a military pilot who has pulled 7+ sustained g turns and more.  He describes neck pain and the possibility of permanent injury as a fact of his job.

 

All I'm asking for is accurate physics.  No charades or gimmicks.  It seems like many of you have not tried Rise of Flight, which is a shame because it makes it hard to hold a conversation without having the same information.  If you try that sim you'll notice that, except for a small shift in the vertical axis, the view is rock steady regardless of the maneuvers you do.   The degree of dynamic movement is much less than in 1946, for example.

 

Here is a good video showing involuntary pilot head movement in a F-16:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1X8SE-FDjk

 

Notice how his whole body shifts up under negative gs, i.e. flying inverted.

 

 

The whoel problem  arises on combining it with  Track ir without infuriating your brain perception of reality.  The game cannto force your real  life head to move.. So  if the game wants to make your head go to left buyt at same time you move your  RL head to other side.. the game CANNOT move  the camera  to anywhere other than to where you  moved your real life head, otherwise your brain till looose completely the illusion that  the track IR offers you.

 

 

 Its a game, its not about being realistic, that is somethign that confuse much people. Its about DEcieving your brain into thinking you  are in a realistic scenario!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is really hard to realistically simulate the human perception of being bounced about. Most unstabilized cameras, and even stabilized cameras, usually fail to simulate how effectively the eye and mind can stabilize what we perceive around us, even when we are bouncing around.  For instance, here is a video of me driving in my car over the weekend:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyH6UVvk3vA&feature=share&list=UU7ATezx4GOhIIj9K5kxrDnQ

 

From my eye to mind point of view I was riding on air, but from the point of view of my unstabilized camera I was going off roading. I think that head movement in game should probably be somewhat subtle, to better simulate how we stabilze the things we perceive from eye to mind.

 

:salute: MJ

Edited by =69.GIAP=MIKHA
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing we need to consider when thinking of the shake pilot view is that a camera mounted on a helmet is not the same thing as our eyes in our bodies. Just drive down a bumpy road to see what I am talking about. Our bodies involuntariky cushion the movement so we di not see the shake as much as we would if we were looking through a camera mounted on our shoulder or anhelmet. I like the pilot head movement but Ihope it isnt overdone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much the peripheral of our vision plays into this. I mean, we don't have a rectangle of plastic bordering the edges of our vision. My vision fades out to the peripheral in all directions with no distinct border. I imagine if I saw life through something like a camera it would be shaking all over the place. I keep forgetting to try and focus on the tip of my nose to see if I notice 'shake' more while doing things, but it's probably better to look where I'm going!  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Ok, we've seen a few Alpha videos now.  So far the head movement seems to be identical to RoF.  Are there any plans to increase head movement to feel more like Clod or DCS, or even a middle path like the old Il-2 1946?

 

This is very important to me in a combat flight sim.  For example, in RoF if you roll inverted your point of view remains stationary, whereas we know that you fall into your straps in a real aircraft.  Even the people who don't want a lot of head movement confirm that this is true.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is really hard to realistically simulate the human perception of being bounced about. Most unstabilized cameras, and even stabilized cameras, usually fail to simulate how effectively the eye and mind can stabilize what we perceive around us, even when we are bouncing around.  For instance, here is a video of me driving in my car over the weekend:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyH6UVvk3vA&feature=share&list=UU7ATezx4GOhIIj9K5kxrDnQ

 

From my eye to mind point of view I was riding on air, but from the point of view of my unstabilized camera I was going off roading. I think that head movement in game should probably be somewhat subtle, to better simulate how we stabilze the things we perceive from eye to mind.

 

:salute: MJ

Where were you driving? I hope that doesn't come across as creepy! It just looks a lot like where I grew up :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather have less head movement than more to be honest (taking CloD as reference; too little playtime in RoF).

 

Looking at the screen, when somebody else flies or when watching a video, the little bit of head movement due to g-forces or when rolling the aircraft does look good. But when I'm on the controls myself, that head movement feels awkward.

 

This is just my subjective perception of things, but when flying for real I do not conciously notice the head movement, even when maneuvering (Human vision/brain compensation? Maybe. No idea!). When I play CloD however, I do notice it, without focusing on it.

 

And that's what makes it feel out of place for me in games. The modeled element in the game (head movement), while being of course there in reality, is just perceived differently in real flight.

 

Anyways, just how I see it. Take it for what it's worth.

 

I'm with you, walking down the street or even running you really aren't aware of your head bouncing up and down so much. I've also flown some aerobatics and whist I felt the power of G-force again my view wasn't all over the place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You posted the same video(-link) in this thread already on August 3rd:

 

Here's a video showing what a shaky pilot POV effect could look like. Just watch for the cockpit views. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D2Lzqf4ve8

 

MAC, when running in Battlefield the POV will shake from side to side to better suggest the illusion of our character sprinting.  

 

Did you want to point out the shaky POV effect once more or something else?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You posted the same video(-link) in this thread already on August 3rd:

 

 

Did you want to point out the shaky POV effect once more or something else?

 

Got to say that the guy who produced the video is very clever - he obviously wanted to produce a video representing a film of the event, not the event itself. Hence all the camera artifacts put in, like the shutter effect on the propellers and the headcam shake.

 

I'm not sure what the other gents want, do you want a flight simulator or a simulation of a video of someone flying an aeroplane?

 

W.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I'm not sure what the other gents want, do you want a flight simulator or a simulation of a video of someone flying an aeroplane?

 

 

You are right, it is going into the wrong direction here. What VeryOldMan said, is true:  If the simulator turns the ingame head, where the pilots head would move, our real head goes exactly opposite to counter that.

This is more than annoying. We have to accept the limitation of a ground fixed simulator. G forces can´t be modelled (Blackout and redout are ok in my opinion). Any forced view movements are rubbish. Even professional sims, worth millions, don´t do this.

A bit funny, that  obviously many "sim pilots" think, it would add to realism.

 

 

PS:  @steppenwolf:   A "simulator" with this   "with EZCA"  view wouldn´t live more than 5 minutes on my PC.

Edited by Quax
Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the sim is pre-alpha, and I haven't noticed much (involuntary) head movement in the youtube videos.  What are the plans for this in BoS?  For the most part I like the head movement effect in the DCS P-51, but I understand that in a coordinated turn there should not be any head roll movement (do the vector physics to convince yourself).  Some of us feel that RoF is a bit weak in this department, where the pilot's head is more or less rigid, and always lined up with the gunsight regardless of g-forces or violent maneuvers.  Are there plans for more dynamic head movement in BoS compared to RoF?

 

Once again I agree with Gav!  This is a really big factor in immersion that is done very poorly (if at all) by nearly every sim ever made.  I also agree that DCS: P51 gets it right in this regard.  Accelerations do occur in coordinated flight.  Rolling creates much more head and torso forces than does adverse yaw.  Anything you do that isn't done gently with the stick, rudder or throttle will throw you off.  It's just part of what makes flying so much fun.

 

^^^^^

 

Don't know how that happened but the first paragraph was Gavagai's and the second is my reply.

Edited by SmokinHole
Link to post
Share on other sites

the head movements ruins totally the perception of spin or skid

 

hell is the plane oversteering or just my virtual head moving

 

personally i would suggest those who want head movement to be exagerated to get a butkicker and hack it to maximum

Edited by raaaid
Link to post
Share on other sites

the head movements ruins totally the perception of spin or skid

 

hell is the plane oversteering or just my virtual head moving

 

personally i would suggest those who want head movement to be exagerated to get a butkicker and hack it to maximum

 

 

Alright.  Fair enough.  But if people with this opinion come back later complaining the the 109-G4 is too slow or that gun dispersion is unrealistic, then they are being quite hypocritical.  Said another way, they are being selective in their choice of areas where they deem something "unrealistic".  IMO, accurate model-specific FM and true ballistics take a back seat to a genuine "sense of flight".  My own experience both real and virtual informs me without a doubt that lateral and longitudinal accelerations and my body's reaction to those accelrations is every bit as important as what I am seeing.  In RoF, those who argued most vehemently against a more accurate head movement were players who had legendary gunnery skills.  Funny how the two are related.  TIR is a pointing device.  Momentary periods where a player's view moves despite his fixed head position causes zero confusion for the player.  He can easily distinguish his own commanded inputs from those movements generated by the game.  In general, I think DCS has become convoluted and flaky.  It is such a resource hog that I rarely play it anymore other than to try out simple set-pieces that my poor computer can handle.  In other words, I've ceased being a fan.  The head movement in the Mustang is the exception.  It is marvellous.  And it is done with enough subtlety that most players will see no degradation in their gunnery.  

 

At the very least a realistic head movement should be an option.  I play the game for fun, not to be in the top 100.  Val and Viks can smash me into a pulp as much as they like with 8-way hat and fixed eye-point on the sight.  I'm ok with that.  But when I play I want to actually believe that I am flying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As i just watched another EZGA movie without the exaggerated moves from the video in this thread, I must say that it really improves the immersion, as it takes away

the "flying on rails" feeling that one usually has in a flight sim.

In my experience as a single engine and glider pilot i always felt that the air isn't really smooth below the cloud level and not fully smooth above.

There are always unforseeable disturbances which are strong enough to move your head and your vision a bit, like a slightly bumpy road.

I strongly vote to include something like the EZGA into BoS, of course switchable for servers which prefer game over simulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be happy if BoS just moved the simulated head in the direction the sim pilot is currently looking.. In that there is nothing better than looking over at the burning plane you just nailed and see the pilot looking back at you knowing your the guy who flamed him! Now if they can just add the RoF hand gestures to BoS with the inclusion of 'flipping the bird' in the direction your looking! In that it could be used by either pilot in the above described scenario ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

and if theyr gonna syncronize the translation of the camera with the rotation of it, that is when you pan right you translate right(for mouse view users as me), as i had suggested long ago...

 

plz do more translation for less panning than there was in cod 

Edited by raaaid
Link to post
Share on other sites

As i just watched another EZGA movie without the exaggerated moves from the video in this thread, I must say that it really improves the immersion, as it takes away

the "flying on rails" feeling that one usually has in a flight sim.

In my experience as a single engine and glider pilot i always felt that the air isn't really smooth below the cloud level and not fully smooth above.

There are always unforseeable disturbances which are strong enough to move your head and your vision a bit, like a slightly bumpy road.

I strongly vote to include something like the EZGA into BoS, of course switchable for servers which prefer game over simulation.

 

 

Ok, fair enough:    game mode:    with EZGA     simulation mode:     without EZGA

 

PS1 : name me only one professional full flight simulator (either military or civilian) with that inforced view change !

 

PS2 :  "flying on rails" :   Why didn´t you try ROF ?   (there is no flying on rails feeling - and that has nothing to do with crazy view changes BTW)

Edited by Quax
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I erased my post because I came across as too much of an a$$.

 

RAF74_Winger, on 11 Aug 2013 - 16:07, said:snapback.png

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.

 

I have less than I pinky width of space between my head and my canopy in my S1S.  There is so little room that I am forced to use a Clarity Aloft headset that fits behind my neck.  But despite that I am able to push 3 negative with out hitting the canopy.  I ratchet myself in pretty tight with a Hooker harness and I guess my spine doesn't stretch so much.  But it isn't the up/down and rolling accelerations that I think simulations get so wrong.  It is accelerations felt due to yaw.  I always fly with a camera strapped to my head and it is pretty clear that my head moves alot, especially during snaps (flicks for those east of the Atlantic).  For me, knowing what I experience in my real flying, and comparing that with what I see in otherwise fantistic simulations, it just kills the immersion for me.  I see that damn insturment panel or HUD practically glued to the bottom half of my screen (with TrackIR) and I feel like I am still back in 1988.

Edited by SmokinHole
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have less than I pinky width of space between my head and my canopy in my S1S.  There is so little room that I am forced to use a Clarity Aloft headset that fits behind my neck.  But despite that I am able to push 3 negative with out hitting the canopy.  I ratchet myself in pretty tight with a Hooker harness and I guess my spine doesn't stretch so much.  But it isn't the up/down and rolling accelerations that I think simulations get so wrong.  It is accelerations felt due to yaw.  I always fly with a camera strapped to my head and it is pretty clear that my head moves alot, especially during snaps (flicks for those east of the Atlantic).  For me, knowing what I experience in my real flying, and comparing that with what I see in otherwise fantistic simulations, it just kills the immersion for me.  I see that damn insturment panel or HUD practically glued to the bottom half of my screen (with TrackIR) and I feel like I am still back in 1988.

 

That's interesting, the S2B I used to fly had a good two inches of clearance between the top of my DC's headband and the canopy, and that was with a seat pack parachute and approx 1/2" of foam under that (the seat cushions were dispensed with). I'm not a small bloke either, 6'6" in bare feet. Just wondering if your S1S was factory built or home built - the home built versions have a lot of variation in terms of the seating position depending on the stature of the original builder.

 

As for your second point, I don't think anyone is disputing whether or not the head moves during manoeuvring, just the degree of compensation that the eyes and the brain provide. In my own experience, yes, if I concentrate on the movement of the cockpit around me I can see that it's moving relative to my eye position. If I focus outside the cockpit, I simply don't notice that movement. Flick rolls are a special case I think - the combined roll and yaw accelerations are much greater than one would experience in other manoeuvres.

 

I think a happy medium would be to model or show the movement of the cockpit relative to the pilot, but no movement of the external environment. I believe some of the car racing simulators do this (I'd have to go back and check), and this provides a much less intrusive interpretation of head movement for me. I think that this is what RoF does, again, I'll have to go back and check.

 

W.

Edited by RAF74_Winger
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...