Author Topic: Six o'Clock View Thread Part II (Read 868 times)

Kweassa · « **Reply #30 on:** November 08, 2002, 10:12:54 PM »

Quote

And this extra artwork would be turned out by whom? And you would be willing to sacrifice what upcoming planes instead? This stuff doesn't come out of thin air. Frankly, I want to see more planes and vehicles, more new feature.

Not to mention the fact that AH doesn't use 2D cockpits. It's not "cockpit art", its the actual 3D shape. You can't just "slide a different bitmap in there", it's not that simple. I don't expect to see metric guages or "realistic cockpit art" based on the fact that AH uses real 3D object and simply places your viewpoint inside the "seat" area. It's why their fantastic view system works so well. I can't imagine it would be trivial to re-design the 3d object for every plane and vehicle in the game with a different cockpit. That just doesn't sound feasible, even if it was desirable.

Actually, you can just slide a differentbitmap in there.

Kweassa · « **Reply #31 on:** November 08, 2002, 10:13:51 PM »

Kweassa · « **Reply #32 on:** November 08, 2002, 10:18:15 PM »

The problem with this, Hitech says, is about texture memories and download file sizes. Otherwise, there are people waiting here in the AH community who will jump immediately into this matter and remake the cockpit guage BMPs if given just half the chance.

It may not be a totally new cockpit, but just "sliding in a different bitmap" for the generic ones we have just might be a compromise and a solution.

Midnight · « **Reply #33 on:** November 09, 2002, 08:52:57 AM »

Can't do any head movement restrictions unless HTC gets rid of 'Instant' view mode.

I like to use snap view myself, becuase you sometimes catch a glimpce of a bandit as your head moves from one view to the next. In Instant mode, you might not see the bandit if he's not in the zone you are looking at.

I would certainly be for removeing the way you can move your head through 360 degrees in either direction, but then it comes down to who has the best gaming HARDWARE and then having an unfair advantage.

Funny thing, if you use Track IR in pan mode,.. you have that restriction built in already.

Some guys are still using keyboards and hats to change views, and if you make view panning too slow, there will be whiners that say "Hey I can turn my head WAY faster in real life" make it too fast, and people will whine "Hey, no way a guy could look over his shoulder SO Fast if he was pulling 4Gs"

Unfortunately, I think we are stuck with what we have until HTC changes the game so that view switching only works with TrackIR

aac · « **Reply #34 on:** November 09, 2002, 05:08:58 PM »

As far as the head movement I could care less, but leave the metric stuff OFF.

sax · « **Reply #35 on:** November 09, 2002, 06:42:00 PM »

Any change in the way the game looks would be refreshing.

I agree with changing the view systym for more realism.

Glasses · « **Reply #36 on:** November 10, 2002, 06:07:59 AM »

Even though I'm not particularly familiar with the metric system entirely,being raised on the English system, I'd like something in AH which resembles what Kweassa posted ,all I can say is wow! That would add much more immersion if the instrument panels looked like that.

Miko more people want accurate cockpits than you think thing is most just don't post in the BBS for the ussual harrassment done in these boards.

LUPO · « **Reply #37 on:** November 10, 2002, 07:37:08 AM »

Nice pics Kweassa!!!

I strongly support your point!
About six 'o clock wiew, it's an old story....Have a look to this poll ,
to the results
and comments.

airspro · « **Reply #38 on:** November 10, 2002, 11:52:18 AM »

Add one vote to NO for both

There , that was easy

-------------------------------

I would like more maps , more gv's and more ships . In that order .

Sandman · « **Reply #39 on:** November 10, 2002, 11:58:15 AM »

It's just silly.

To worry about head movement on a view system that is already horribly unrealistic is a waste of time.

When we have 200+ degrees of vision and three-dimensional binocular vision, then we can start worrying about head spins.

Karnak · « **Reply #40 on:** November 10, 2002, 07:13:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seeker
Sounds great, if and when mirrors are modelled for those that had them.

Mirrors in the real deal were useless and distracting. In the reduced res of a computer game the mirrors would be absolutely pointless.

Accarding to one RAF pilot from the Battle of Britain, a 109 was about the width of a dash on a type writer when within range and viewed in the mirror. About this visible:

_

Now extrapolate that down to account for the wide angle lense and reduced resolution in a computer game and it migt be a single pixel.

Maybe two.

Creamo · « **Reply #41 on:** November 10, 2002, 07:31:39 PM »

Useless? As in it’s better to crane your neck every single time compared to shifting your eyes up to a mirror?

Certainly using both in conjunction is a advantage, not useless. I think the Israel Air Force has a good opinion on it at least regarding real life.

And in a game, you'd see the icons.

Why all the excuses to argue a gameplay feature additions?

J_A_B · « **Reply #42 on:** November 10, 2002, 08:15:24 PM »

Well some requested features, no matter how good-natured, are worth arguing against. The request for unrealistically harsh engine temp damage is one that comes to mind.

Mirrors...well if they showed ICONS then they might be useful (I assumed any mirror modeled in AH would NOT show ICONS). Of course it might also be terribly distracting so we'd have to see it to judge it.

I mirror in AH without ICONS would definately be useless.

J_A_B

Creamo · « **Reply #43 on:** November 10, 2002, 08:24:38 PM »

Arguing other topics sums up your intent. Your assumptions are nearly as pointless.

Saying “a mirror without icons is useless “ might garner some debate from the no icon realism arena crowds.

J_A_B · « **Reply #44 on:** November 10, 2002, 08:29:39 PM »

What intent?

J_A_B