head movement

[Uufflakke]

I don't see any head movement while this pilot hangs in his straps inverted:

 

 

Disappointing but not unexpected.

 

 

Sorry for getting off topic but in your clip I happened to see the notorious pop up effect. Just like good old  IL2:1946.

The fences of houses pop up and vanish again. Maybe it has to do with the fact it is all in development or with the ingame settings or your system? Dunno...

 

Just my 2 humble cents.

[steppenwolf]

Nice find SmokinHole, clearly shows how severe things can get.

[FuriousMeow]

Sorry for getting off topic but in your clip I happened to see the notorious pop up effect. Just like good old  IL2:1946.

The fences of houses pop up and vanish again. Maybe it has to do with the fact it is all in development or with the ingame settings or your system? Dunno...

 

Just my 2 humble cents.

 

I didn't see any pop-up. Although RoF has the fade-in/fade-out with objects so I can't see why it wouldn't be present in BoS.

[Quax]

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.

 

+1

 

In RL the view stays "centered" because the brain corrects the forced head movement. If the in game view is forced around, it is just annoying and unrealistic.

 

 

 

Notice the amount of head movement for a World Class aerobatic pilot really throwing it about.

 

 

 

The problem is:  if the game forces the ingame head to the left, you will through your head to the right (TrackIR) to correct it. That means that it is doing the opposite of what it should. Terrible !

Edited November 24, 2013 by Quax

[All_Apologies]

I think Quaxs has the right idea to simulated head movement. The only thing it adds to the game is a headache for a lot of players. If the devs decide to add it I hope they have an option to turn it off.

 

Was also thinking instead of adding movement to the screen why not the players that want it just pretend? Example would be you know your going to break left so you can just throw yourself physically to the right. About to do some negative G's? No problem just jump out of your chair continuously. Problem solved.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

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

 

Absolutely wonderful! I guess it's the air show we all would like to have attended!

[=IRFC=SmokinHole]

 

...The problem is:  if the game forces the ingame head to the left, you will through your head to the right (TrackIR) to correct it. That means that it is doing the opposite of what it should. Terrible !

 

I know intuitively this would seem to be the case.  But if DCS:P51 is any guide, I don't believe it is the case.  To repeat myself, the TrackIR is just an input device like your stick and mouse.  You brain easily manages which in-game head movement is commanded by you, or commanded by the game.  Give this to the core beta group.  Then let them decide if a realistic head movement is incompatible with the PC environment.

[gavagai]

Just like DCS, an option is what some of us want.  I would even turn it on if it put me at a disadvantage against those who kept it off.

 

RoF has head shake as an option, but it is so subtle you can barely tell it is there.  I would enjoy something significantly more dynamic.

[Quax]

No problem, if they make it an option. But it would spoil the sim for others, who can´t live with it. There is a reason, why no full flight simulator has implemented forced view movements.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Quax

[Igitur]

I think the sim, as good as it is, will ever look like an artificial and comfortable computer generated experience WITHOUT that feature, especially under unexpected or brutal circumstances like runway in a bad state, collisions, crash landings or violent manoeuvers.

 

Having it as an option is fine, but it should belong to the full real thing imo.

 

Regards,

[arjisme]

There is a reason, why no full flight simulator has implemented forced view movements.

 

Full civilian flight simulators do not simulate lining up a shot in a crosshair, so it is less an issue there. Also, those same simulators offer no view system at all other than the pilot using and turning his own head. There's no snap to center key. And, the truly full ones use hydraulics to physically move the cockpit to better simulate the physical feeling of the forces on the pilot.

 

Full military simulators may be similar (I don't know), although those would have the aiming issue. However, pilot training (what those simulator are used for) does include mock dogfights in real aircraft, so the targeting under flight conditions simulation does occur, just not with software. The point is, head movement isn't in military full simulators because they don't need it.

 

 

Having it as an option is fine, but it should belong to the full real thing imo.

Agreed, and it should be enforceable as a server setting too. This discussion is primarily about MP IMO.

[steppenwolf]

I think the discussion is about more than MP. It's about trying to introduce a fresh element to an old game model. Creative manipulation of the POV could be used to simulate a number of things; like vibration, buffeting, hits, speed, temperature, G force. It's the player's window in the simulated world. I know everyone is divided on this issue, both sides site the other as being 'unrealistic'. But regardless, the POV in sims has proven largely to be an untapped resource.  

[HagarTheHorrible]

Definitely should be included, optional and as a server setting too.

 

Both Clod and DCS include head movement, BoS, hopefully backwards compatible with RoF,  might implement it, building on and improving the effect found in those sims.  If the rest of the work done by 777/1c is anything to go by then it would be very good.

 

I think I would like to see it implemented with a press and hold button.  Pressing the button disables looking around,  slightly draws your head towards the sight and braces your virtual body to simulate concentrating on shooting (ARMA), releasing the button takes you back to normal.  Of course you can shoot without pressing and holding the button but you are less likely to be lined up with the sight and if you manoeuvre then your head if more prone to move around a bit.  Each has it's own advantages and disadvantages, in one you sacrifice accuracy in the other situational awareness.  Bringing another skill factor and challenge and  to the virtual skies.

[Quax]

 

 Agreed, and it should be enforceable as a server setting too. This discussion is primarily about MP IMO.

 

 

If I have to take my head (with Track IR) to the opposite side (as it should go) to counter the inforced view movement, it makes this an arcade gimmick for me.  And you want to divide the anyway too small MP crowd now ?

I don´t think, that is very clever. I prefer the "full real" servers. And you want to exclude me and others, who feel the same way, from this servers ?  Kind of egoism ...

[steppenwolf]

Elite: Dangerous Dev talking about game design and art concepts, talks briefly about POV head movement and its use. Thanks to TheBlackPenguin for the link!

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6WmsnwNq98

 

[steppenwolf]

I know everyone has their own take on this, but here's a video showing what I'd really like to see in a sim one day. The center point of this particular POV is all over the place! Adds so much IMO. Sorry for beating a dead horse, I just saw this last night.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhkmIBn-gzU

[Dakpilot]

Check this

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7160-trackir-history-rift-tech-free/

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=VARP=Cygann]

There might be slight offset from aim in harsh maneuvers, but visual shake is unrealistic and silly to ask for.

 

I am an MTB enthusiast and guys from the club sometimes film descents. When on the bike, there is no visual shake whatsoever (speaking about image rider actually see with own eyes, even on bumpiest rocky gardens eyesight image is as steady as it is now sitting in my chair typing this, yet your whole body cramps in every muscle from all the shaking and throwing bike all over the place).

 

Now when you look at GoPro shots from the helmet, any descent looks like a rider just had epileptic attack, and mind you, those are cameras with integrated image stabilization!

 

Here is one video of one of those descents: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyiIKDhYds8

 

Think again what are you asking for because if anyone makes MTB sim, with this shake, no one would buy DH bike ever again if he was to believe this is what it looks like when you ride it.

 

It's kind of silly to even discuss realism of something like image shake while you point it out with fixed mounted cameras. I repeat once more, video above is filmed with cam with optical image stabilization and still look like that, guess we're long way in filming tech to what human eye/brain combo can do. So just forget what you see on cameras, if you discuss shake, discuss it from 'gamy' feature that can be on and off in options, because in real life there isn't any, there is only alignment shift from center of aim that is probably very short lasting and not shaky but more like a one snap move you then either compensate in sustained force or just ignore if it was short lasted force.  

[TX-Zigrat]

Cyclops is exactly right, you head shake proponents are crazy. Your head shaking in real life is filtered by your brain because it senses the motion, on a screen it just makes you feel sick

 

This is one of the main reasons I don't fly on atag server in clod, headshKe is a very bad terrible idea!!!!!

[sturmkraehe]

It's not only filtered by your brain but pre-compensated by pivoting the eye ball. Also a goPro gear is at the same distance as the eyes from the rotation centre which means that the movement including speed and acceleration experienced by the camera is different than that by the eyes.

 

On a different note the video (nice one) is interesting: I see no fingerprints!

[steppenwolf]

Yeah, everyone's got their own take on it.

 

If brains and eyes filter and stabalize like you say then you guys got nothing to worry about, you won't even notice the camera shake.

[sturmkraehe]

I think there is a small misunderstanding of what both Cyclop and me say. Of course a picture that is shaking is NOT filtered by the brain nor by the eyes. However, every human has two IMUs (inertial measurement units), one in each ear that provides a lot of information about acceleration and head position to the brain that allows the brain to compensate a lot in no time. 

Edited June 13, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[steppenwolf]

^{I know dude, I'm just messing with you.}

[=VARP=Cygann]

Yeah well to be perfect clear, I am all into some kind of moderate head bob as seen in Elite Dangerous video, something to make it immersive for a player.

Just not the epilepsy shaking all over the place as static cam would show it.

 

Some kind of head bob that push you shortly in high G would probably look and feel nice in a game since we do not have to feel the forces. Same is with FF sticks, you didn't have FF stick to warn you about tight turns, incoming stalls, taking damage or when you fire, but still WW sims provide that to fill in a little bit of missing sensations/senses.

 

So it's up to developers. If it was up to me, I'd make it and then allow players to customize 6 DOF shake with six sliders that go from none to plenty. This way one makes everyone happy since this seem to be one of those things like force feedback, everyone has different idea how much is too much.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I know everyone has their own take on this, but here's a video showing what I'd really like to see in a sim one day. The center point of this particular POV is all over the place! Adds so much IMO. Sorry for beating a dead horse, I just saw this last night.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhkmIBn-gzU

What struck me most about this video is that the person with the camera kept his head level with the horizon when possible, not something I do with TrackIR but might be something that feels more natural with VR.

[SharpeXB]

CoDs "head shake" effect is terrible!

Until I read this thread I didn't even know that was what it was supposed to be. It just feels like the game is broken or your TrackIR is defective.

In DCS, RoF or BoS I don't notice any effect or difference. Probably that's the way it should be, very subtle. Otherwise it would be distracting and annoying and people would just switch it off.

I don't think it's a server option in any of those sims either not should it be. Flight sims don't need more server options to divide up the 6 or 7 people who ever play online.

[steppenwolf]

I'm with Cyclops in that I think Elite Dangerous will show people how beneficial manipulation of the POV axes can be, later games will follow and refine. The GoPro on a solid post pivot will be phased out. We just haven't seen it done properly yet.  

[SharpeXB]

I had try this out in all three sims again to form a better opinion.

It's something I hadn't noticed or paid attention to before.

Cliffs of Dover is all right, I think there's another issue with the TIR, that it doesn't move smoothly but that's not the G effect.

Yeah I think RoF could use more lateral effect. If this stuff was more pronounced that P-51 it would be really distracting.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I fly helicopters every day. Everything is shaking and we fly throughout the performance envelope from NOE to continuous speed orbits. Everything is shaking and my head is often moved by relatively low G forces. What does not move is my vision. I've strapped a GoPro for both helo flight as well as my ride in a P51. There is movement in the camera which is not present in my field of view. What my neck muscles cannot dampen my eyes do. Do COD or BF fps have a noticable shake when sprinting? I found the head movement in CLOD terribly distracting and immersion breaking. I haven't played '46 in years and don't own any DCS titles. I prefer any head movement in a game to be almost so subtle as to barely be noticeable.

[TX-EcoDragon]

Having only a moment to post, I'll simply copy paste my thoughts on this from the CloD forums. In short, as an experienced aerobatic, formation, and mock dogfighting pilot, I'm going to agree with those that have stated that headshake implementation very quickly becomes arcade, and detracts from the realism of a sim if much more than belt stretch is modeled (eyepoint moving up under negative g) and lateral accelerations when in uncoordinated flight. Here's my posts from over there (Where the head shake is horribly implemented and should be disabled for the greatest realism): 

 

Yes, the headshake is on the short list of things that bother me. I'm an aerobatic pilot in the real life, and what we have in game is what a passenger would experience in the airplane, NOT what the pilot would experience. The pilot will anticipate and compensate for the accelerations of the airplane, while the passenger will be at the mercy of the accelerations.

 

Many of the aircraft that I fly have roll rates exceeding 420 degrees per second, they have minimal roll inertia so they are able to stop rolling or go from rolling one way to the other extremely fast....much, much, faster than anything we have in CloD...and yet, with experience I can keep my head where I want it in real life. If I take a passenger, even if they are a fellow aerobatic pilot, I  must avoid max rate roll transitions as these would likely cause the passenger to slam against the canopy/cockpit sides because they can't anticipate the accelerations. Of course our in game headshake should simulate the pilot experience, and in planes with far slower roll rates. 

 

What we have in Clod is the pilot's head rolling right when the plane rolls left. 

 

Watch this video and compare what the pilot in the rear seat does to what the passenger in front does...you will see that our virtual 109 pilot in Cliffs of Dover has "The Passenger Experience." This is why it is not correct to model headshake in sims by forcing the pilot's head to roll opposite the direction of roll, even though the physical forces might suggest that is correct. An expereince aerobatic/combat pilot will anticipate, and compensate.

 

[video=youtube;oqATH83pepY]

 

I'm all for maximal realism, but the headshake stays off on my machine...only trouble is, it's on in the servers I'd like to fly...

 

It could be modified to be more realistic, but the current implementation isn't there at all.

 

I would be happy to provide helmet camera footage if that would be useful for any of this (but understand that what your head does still amplifies what your eyes actually see, they are pretty good image stabilizers).

 

 

**********

 

OK, I've put together a quick comparison of the headshake we have in the  Cliffs of Dover 109 in the current mod version, to what my helmet camera sees in a Pitts S-2C.

Note that I wasn't actively trying to hold my head still with respect to a fixed point, as I would be if I were aiming at a target. Also be mindful of the fact that the pilot's eyes further stabilize the image vs what the helmet camera conveys.  

 

[video=youtube;kuAO4eG4ifI]

 

[video=youtube;hUs9g0S2Kxg]

 

Here's one more...

 

[video=youtube;6jqYHjJLMno]

 

You can see that the 3 cabane struts which just happen to line up with the line of sight of the camera move laterally with respect to each other only slightly - I was not trying to keep these 3 narrow struts lined up (like lining up a bead and ring sight) but despite that, they stay more or less in plane with each other.  Worth mentioning too is that the motion that these types of wing rocks have a moment where you are somewhat uncoordinated and will feel yourself leaning towards the ground somewhat - a perfectly coordinated turn will be smoother with even less lateral displacement of the pilot torso. Oh and there's mention of shoulder belts...we always wear them loose - shoulder belts are only to keep the pilot from hitting the instrument panel in a crash. The lap and crotch belts are tight, the shoulder harness is kept fairly loose - otherwise you will hurt your back during negative G, chafe your neck something awful with all had turning, and not be able to move to check six, get full forward stick deflection, reach the radios/fuel selector etc.

Edited June 14, 2014 by TX-EcoDragon

[TX-EcoDragon]

Sorry, I shared the first video such that it should start at  1 minute 18 seconds, but it doesn't look like it is, so please check that section of the video for a very clear example . This link will hopefully work too:

 

http://youtu.be/oqATH83pepY?t=1m18s

[senseispcc]

In my opinion the head movement is like the force feedback of the joystick a question of personal opinion! Once it is too strong and for other moments or peoples it is not enough.   

Maybe it should be a adjustable function by slider?

Edited June 14, 2014 by senseispcc

[SharpeXB]

Thanks EcoDragon. That's awesome!

 

This thread is finished...

[HagarTheHorrible]

Head shake in this instance is probably not a good term as it implies shaking, which for the most part is negated by the body and eyes (as already said by others) unless it is such a high frequency that our eyes and brains can't keep up ( although it might be good for indicating vibrations from engine or airframe damage).  Head movement or displacement might be more descriptive and more accurate. I think  there is always going to be some displacement, probably more noticeable left, right rather than back and front.  In most instances and in particular if manoeuvres are pre planned and co-ordinated then this can be minimized, but even then physical fitness, fatigue etc will all play a part.  The main difference however is obviously that "G" forces might well be higher in front line fighter aircraft making it not only more difficult to counter those forces fully but also more tiring so it becomes increasingly more difficult. Finally, however,  as much of a non event head movement might be, even in stunt flying, the whole point of a fighter is to get little bits of moving lead to hit another moving object that in all probability won't be where it was when you pulled the trigger thus complicating an already difficult puzzle, this requires lining up two objects, the sight and the target all the while trying to counter "G" forces, to put your head in approximately the ideal place, or if not, making allowances for that offset, even with optical sights, is certainly going to be noticeable to the pilot if not downright irritating.

 

P.S  Thanks EcoDragon for the vid's

Edited June 14, 2014 by HagarTheHorrible

[Wind]

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. 

 

Basically close to 90% of the modern fighter pilots end up with some form of neck injuries/disk prolapses during their career.

90%. Foreces are extraordinary and the human body is just not built to sustained high G loading.

 

And asking for "accurate physics" is understandable to a certain extent, but you have to keep some kind of touch to the reality.

Seems many people dont understand that you have X amount of budget, Z amount of time, Y amount of processing power and O amount

of yield when it comes to...well..not only games design but everything in life.

 

Some people seem to live under the misconception that the dev team has the resources of Bahrain but for shits and giggles decide to

not to implement some factors that might (or might not) add to the immersion of the game. I personally feel that the resources is better

spent on honing other things like single player campaign or whatnot. Not adding relatively obscure gimmics.

 

 

And about the seeing part. Yes, the human body is exceptional of filtering out jarring & bumping in real life. It is actually extraordinary

how our race has adapted and accustomed. It is not only the eyeballs itself that has a fabulous "image stabilizer" via the muscles but

also the preprocessing that the retina does, let alone the optical cortex that process the information. But it is not infallible, it has it limits

and trying to reproduce it realistically in the computer games...at the present...is far fetched. Low yield, if I might say.

 

The anecdotes like "riding mountain bikes in rock garden" are a bit off as well, the human physhiology comes to play.

When, say riding downhill with skis or with mtb, you are floating on several levels of suspension : skis/bike suspension, legs,

midbody, neck. Most of the time we can feel and see relatively stable when going into a rock garden with a plush 7" travel Specialized

or hitting a pile of frozen avy debris...but, when you do that going mach schnell things go south. You just cant see properly.

It is basically that seconds ago you had been watching a 4k display and suddenly you are watching some blurry 200p.

 

Same thing like driving a poorly suspensioned car into a long strip of gravel road that is on dashboard...for a half a second you can

see then it is all "hold on tight"..

And there is the thing. When you strap down and you have your ass down to the seat, you basically lose ALL the bodys natural

suspension mechanisms. Done. Nada. Finit. You dont have anything there giving up except your disks in your spinal cord.

 

Basically, your resolution goes down. You lose separation and details. Things disappear.

Same thing has happened in the field of aviation several times when pilots have experienced severe turbulence/flutter, they

have been unable to discern any small details out of the window, let alone read the instruments.

 

 

 

Dont get me wrong, it would be nice to have some realistic effects when pulling high Gs or hitting the wake turbulence but

at what cost? We wouldnt get a single player campaign? only 2 planes to fly?

And for what? Just to get that geezer in a 4000€ rig to disable all the gfx effects to get a headway in multiplayer...

 

No thanks.

 

 

My 0.02€

[TX-Zigrat]

I think eco dragon says it perfectly, case closed

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Basically close to 90% of the modern fighter pilots end up with some form of neck injuries/disk prolapses during their career.

90%. Foreces are extraordinary and the human body is just not built to sustained high G loading.

 

And asking for "accurate physics" is understandable to a certain extent, but you have to keep some kind of touch to the reality.

Seems many people dont understand that you have X amount of budget, Z amount of time, Y amount of processing power and O amount

of yield when it comes to...well..not only games design but everything in life.

 

Some people seem to live under the misconception that the dev team has the resources of Bahrain but for shits and giggles decide to

not to implement some factors that might (or might not) add to the immersion of the game. I personally feel that the resources is better

spent on honing other things like single player campaign or whatnot. Not adding relatively obscure gimmics.

 

 

And about the seeing part. Yes, the human body is exceptional of filtering out jarring & bumping in real life. It is actually extraordinary

how our race has adapted and accustomed. It is not only the eyeballs itself that has a fabulous "image stabilizer" via the muscles but

also the preprocessing that the retina does, let alone the optical cortex that process the information. But it is not infallible, it has it limits

and trying to reproduce it realistically in the computer games...at the present...is far fetched. Low yield, if I might say.

 

The anecdotes like "riding mountain bikes in rock garden" are a bit off as well, the human physhiology comes to play.

When, say riding downhill with skis or with mtb, you are floating on several levels of suspension : skis/bike suspension, legs,

midbody, neck. Most of the time we can feel and see relatively stable when going into a rock garden with a plush 7" travel Specialized

or hitting a pile of frozen avy debris...but, when you do that going mach schnell things go south. You just cant see properly.

It is basically that seconds ago you had been watching a 4k display and suddenly you are watching some blurry 200p.

 

Same thing like driving a poorly suspensioned car into a long strip of gravel road that is on dashboard...for a half a second you can

see then it is all "hold on tight"..

And there is the thing. When you strap down and you have your ass down to the seat, you basically lose ALL the bodys natural

suspension mechanisms. Done. Nada. Finit. You dont have anything there giving up except your disks in your spinal cord.

 

Basically, your resolution goes down. You lose separation and details. Things disappear.

Same thing has happened in the field of aviation several times when pilots have experienced severe turbulence/flutter, they

have been unable to discern any small details out of the window, let alone read the instruments.

 

 

 

Dont get me wrong, it would be nice to have some realistic effects when pulling high Gs or hitting the wake turbulence but

at what cost? We wouldnt get a single player campaign? only 2 planes to fly?

And for what? Just to get that geezer in a 4000€ rig to disable all the gfx effects to get a headway in multiplayer...

 

No thanks.

 

 

My 0.02€

90% ? Sources please. If we are talking simple muscle strain, then yes. Otherwise this percentage seems awfully high and not consistent with a quick search of online documentation.

 

I do agree with most of your other points.

[TX-EcoDragon]

I don't remember particular stats, but yes, "fighter pilot neck" is a real worry! Damage to the cervical spine and disks is likely to occur if caution is not used during flight at elevated G's. Turning your head while pulling high g's can cause physical contact that would not normally happen, as well as increase the friction between the disks and vertebrae. 

 

While in a close quarters dogfight you sometimes have no choice about where and when you turn your head, but during non-combat maneuvering and/or aerobatic maneuvering I, and many others, advocate for keeping the head perfectly still during the high g periods of the maneuver. For example, good practice dictates using only your eyes to look up while not moving your head during the first 60 degrees of pitch to a vertical upline, as would happen initiating a loop or hammerhead etc. This helps the competition pilot to detect any yaw or roll corrections required during the pull as they strive to draw that perfect line, as well as reducing the damage that may happen from turning your head earlier, when the g loads are highest.

You can also differentiate "good form" from "bad form" under g by how the pilot handles the horizon...do they try to level the horizon by rolling their head opposite the angle of bank, or do they keep their head and neck perfectly vertical? Leveling the horizon while under g not only reduces the precision of aircraft control, but it increases damaging stress on your neck and spine. 

Edited June 14, 2014 by TX-EcoDragon

[Wind]

90% ? Sources please. If we are talking simple muscle strain, then yes. Otherwise this percentage seems awfully high and not consistent with a quick search of online documentation.

 

I do agree with most of your other points.

 

Someone did a study on/with the Finnish air force few years ago. From the top of my head I remember something like "90% of the pilots (have/had) experienced problems in their xxx during their carreer. Cant remember if it was referring to only neck wear/injuries or back issues.

I really should not quote anything in forums like this without having all the data split,translated and had peer reviewed in six different universities... :D

 

 

Will try to find more info..

 

 

Edit : Harri Rintala did his doctorate on this topic few years ago. I think he has worked with FiAF for years.

Dont know if his stuff is translated though.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Wind

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It is an educated crowd around these here parts

 

Oh, and some trolls too

Edited June 14, 2014 by A1FltTrn=HerrMurf