Author Topic: everyone loves the ww2online lack of 6 view (Read 4361 times)

Westy MOL · « **Reply #30 on:** June 19, 2001, 12:22:00 PM »

"How many of you, tightly tied in your belts"

Never saw a pilot with a belt across his neck or forehead.

Westy

p.s. and Fishu made a good observation

[ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]

Pongo · « **Reply #31 on:** June 19, 2001, 02:13:00 PM »

From hazed..
'ive never seen better and how many games do you all try now, find in minutes you cant seem to see as well as AH, and as a result stop liking or playing it?
most of my sims got this treatment "

ex-bloody-actly

BigJim · « **Reply #32 on:** June 19, 2001, 02:31:00 PM »

Well I play WWIIOL alot and I can tell you that at present the 6 view is NOT my problem, I have to be able to FLY first to have it be a problem and with the current FPS issues flying is NOT an option. AH at least is flyable and from what I have found it is the best out here so far (I even took out a WB account and have found it to be not acceptable and will canceling that account)

BigJim

[ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: BigJim ]

Nifty · « **Reply #33 on:** June 19, 2001, 02:32:00 PM »

Instead of removing the 180 view, they could have added a 160 (and 200 view). this would simulate just about how far your head and shoulders could turn in a strapped seat, and you'd get "peripheral vision" covering your 6. The restrictions would be the plane's headrest and airframe, not some artificial "you can't turn your head more than 135 degrees" when we've got accounts from real life pilots that say they can check their own 6's.

As for AH... I've only used the default snap views. I've never used the pan mode, or padlock mode. *shrugs* guess I'll try out pan mode one day.

Thrawn · « **Reply #34 on:** June 19, 2001, 04:44:00 PM »

Peripheral vision is well...peripheral. Exactly how well can you see with it. I did the 'shoulders against the chair' test. Sure, I could see behind me. But what I could see, for about 60 degrees, was so blurry I could hardly make anything out.

Karnak · « **Reply #35 on:** June 19, 2001, 05:27:00 PM »

Thrawn,

A sholders against the chair test is not representative of what WWII pilots were dealing with.

The shoulder straps were loose so that they could twist their shoulders to look behind them, e.g. check 6.

It is much better to avoid needing tight shoulder restraints (needed when you crash land an aircraft) by being able to see your opponent than to be belted in so tight that he shoots you down.

Toad · « **Reply #36 on:** June 19, 2001, 07:06:00 PM »

What Karnak said.

It's the lap-strap that holds you in the seat while you're maneuvering..even upside down you feel the pressure far more on the lap than shoulders.

So your butt is in the seat, on hand on the stick, other on the throttle...and those won't pull out of the airplane... so you're in a "three-point" configuration.

The shoulder strap doesn't have to be locked down tight.

In fact, I think you'll find in MOST aircraft, particularly the US anyway, that the shoulder straps have a two postion lock switch. I'd have to check to be 100% positive.

One is an inertia reel that allows movement unless under sudden g... like your car works... and the other position locks it tight where it is.<EDIT> Well, it locks the inertia reel, allowing the shoulder belts to retract but not extend any further.

[ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

Hooligan · « **Reply #37 on:** June 20, 2001, 12:24:00 AM »

For all you people who think pilots couldn't move: Please explain why the British changed the flat sided canopies on the Spit Is to the bulged canopies, and why similarly bulged canopies were added to F4Us, 109s, 190s, P51s etc... The Joint Fighter converence report talks quite a bit about the importance of a bulged canopy so that the pilot can make use of the extra room for all around visibility.

Hooligan

janjan · « **Reply #38 on:** June 20, 2001, 12:42:00 AM »

It's all about the aim of the sim.

AH and WW2OL do both have their merits of course. I see it as:

WW2OL: aim is to have realistic air cambat which means 80% of kills by surprice and fights are relatively easy to disengage. Unfortunately lack of ANY ground info makes finding the cons toejamty.

AH: aim is to generate interesting air combats where the pilot have very much info about enemy and thus makes fighting more about monouvers and shooting skill.

There is no doubt WW2OL is more realistic in many ways. More fun? Well depends on pilot.

Tilt · « **Reply #39 on:** June 20, 2001, 04:37:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Westy MOL:
"But I do think you should not be able to go from a 7 view straight over to a 5 view without having come all the way around front first.[ 06-18-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]

Agreed

Tilt

lazs1 · « **Reply #40 on:** June 20, 2001, 09:08:00 AM »

janjan... "80%" kills by guys you never seen means that in melees you would get shot down because you were target fixated as well as being assleep at the switch. We have the former right now in AH... many report never seeing the plane that got em. but...

People got surprised because they weren't looking around not.... because they couldn't look around. You want realistic??? Make the AH flights 4-6 hours with very little chance of ever seeing an enemy and I guarenttee that AH would then duplicate the "surprise" factor. We are very aware because we have very short sorties with a lot of planes around. We are allways close to a fight and hyper allert.

Not having a six view is the result of poor/incomplete game and/or laziness on the part of the game developer. It has nothing whatsoever to do with realism. If the game doesn't have a six view it's because the game isn't finished or the programers are stumped.

WB has promised to fix their six views for years.
lazs

Shamus · « **Reply #41 on:** June 20, 2001, 11:13:00 AM »

Many moons ago I spent a bit of time in Citabria's, used to rack up some free PIC time towing gliders, spent more time looking back than forward, didnt seem to be a problem.

Shamus

Thrawn · « **Reply #42 on:** June 20, 2001, 03:32:00 PM »

Toad, Karnak, thanks for enlightening me.

Gunslayer · « **Reply #43 on:** June 20, 2001, 10:06:00 PM »

Ya JanJan, I love ww2OL's majic compass and attitude indicator. That's really realistic. Its also realistic that your eyeball obviously can only view a 1" by 1" square of a map at once and never view the whole map. Oh and in WW2, the real thing, every time someone went in for a kill they could only see at 3 FPS i guess too. If you want a ground sim you got it in WW2 online. As far as airplanes go its a steaming pile of crap.

janjan · « **Reply #44 on:** June 21, 2001, 01:27:00 AM »

Damn you,

Where did I say that I prefer WW2OL better than AH? But I'm still sure it is (when the game works) nearer to realism. It definitely needs some ground guidance to be enyouable. The frustration level is too high otherwise (just reading about Finnish Morane-Saulnier pilots in winter war as they had no radio...it feel just the same in ww2OL).

However, I'm also sure that in AH you would definitely get better dogfights...till the death. Realistic? Not really. Nice and thrilling? Sure.