Please don't tell me...

[Masherbrum]

So you quote yourself FLOOB?

[FLOOB]

For the purpose of context I left my question included with Hitech's reply.

[JimmyD3]

GV and like hanger dive-bomb attack will be more precise since gauging attack angle will be dead-on.

 

This will not increase the number of bomb****s on GV'ers, we have plenty already and for the most part they are pretty effective.

[Randy1]

And the "realistic" setting for "whatever peripheral vision you can accept" is what, exactly?

Wiley.

First the head position is set up and down and forward and back to a real life position.  It would not be adjustable.  Then the FOV is set to give best forward view with an acceptable peripheral view.  An acceptable peripheral view is one that covers the needed view when you look up or back as an example.

If zoom is used it too should be default set to compensate the limits of monitors as noted by Hitech and not be adjustable.

The more adjustments you remove from the game the less opportunity to game the game  I would think.

[hitech]

Randy, just checking that you understand zoom and FOV are exactly the same thing in a computer game?

Hitech

[Busher]

Change your field of view in main screen settings back to to normal.. i use 106 i believe.

I'm dense ...I know that
Where do I find this FOV adjustment?
Thanks

[ImADot]

I'm dense ...I know that
Where do I find this FOV adjustment?
Thanks

Try the video settings from the main screen before you choose whether to go online or not.

[FLS]

GV and like hanger dive-bomb attack will be more precise since gauging attack angle will be dead-on.
 

The HUD may let you better evaluate the dive angle you end up with but you actually set the dive angle to the target with the location of the start of your dive. There's no point setting a precise dive angle that doesn't point you at the right spot on the ground.

If you're 10k above the target and you start your dive above a ground point 5k from the target what's your dive angle?

[Wiley]

First the head position is set up and down and forward and back to a real life position.  It would not be adjustable.  Then the FOV is set to give best forward view with an acceptable peripheral view.  An acceptable peripheral view is one that covers the needed view when you look up or back as an example.

If zoom is used it too should be default set to compensate the limits of monitors as noted by Hitech and not be adjustable.

The more adjustments you remove from the game the less opportunity to game the game  I would think.

And that default set to compensate for the limits of monitors would be slightly different between a 17" laptop and a 52" screen at the same resolution, wouldn't it?  How would the system be able to tell?  All the program knows is resolution.

How about a triple-monitor system?  Not allowing people to adjust their view preferences is either going to completely hamstring the triple monitor setup or make it even more advantageous to have depending on which side you make best when you set the default.

The head limiting is something I've often considered.  If I'm strapped to a seat with my shoulders square looking as far as I can to my rear, I've got about a 30-40 degree cone behind me where I'm not going to see much, much less be able to track and define the orientation of another aircraft.  Our ability to sit in a stationary office chair and look dead six and up all day with no fatigue and perfect view is much better than it would be IRL, but it improves gameplay IMO.

However, at 6'2" I highly doubt if I were sitting in a 109 my head would be anywhere near the center of the view for the gunsight unless I hunched way forward, which would completely change the geometry of what I would be able to see versus what a 5'2" jockey would see strapped in tight and sitting in the same seat.

The Linda Blair effect and adjustability of views is, I think, a fair compensation for gameplay, differences in hardware, difference between a monitor and the Mk. 1 eyeball, and personal preference.  It is certainly possible to gain advantages through equipment, but it's also possible to somewhat compensate for disadvantages and personal preference with the adjustability.

The HUD may let you better evaluate the dive angle you end up with but you actually set the dive angle to the target with the location of the start of your dive. There's no point setting a precise dive angle that doesn't point you at the right spot on the ground.

I've always done decently at jabo, not pinpoint accurate, but I can usually hit close enough with a 500lber to take radar or ords at least 3 out of 4.  I've always been in the "that looks about right" school of divebombing, but it has seemed to me that more consistency of dive angle means more consistency of sight picture and impact point for the dropped bomb, isn't it?  Varying your dive angle has a substantial effect on where you'd aim, doesn't it?

Wiley.

[FLS]

I've always done decently at jabo, not pinpoint accurate, but I can usually hit close enough with a 500lber to take radar or ords at least 3 out of 4.  I've always been in the "that looks about right" school of divebombing, but it has seemed to me that more consistency of dive angle means more consistency of sight picture and impact point for the dropped bomb, isn't it?  Varying your dive angle has a substantial effect on where you'd aim, doesn't it?

Wiley.

That's correct. That's why you locate the initial point of your dive to set a consistent dive angle.

[Wiley]

That's correct. That's why you use the initial point of your dive to set a consistent dive angle.

Which the ladder lets you now judge with more precision.

I just am not a huge fan of more things being added to the game that give people who choose to use them an advantage over those who don't.  I don't see anything in the real world they had back then that would allow you the same level of precision setting your angle as using a ladder.

Not game breaking, no "the sky is falling", just a step in the wrong direction for my preference, is all.  While it does make it easier for people to have success in jabo, that takes away a lot of the flavor from learning to do it without IMO.

Wiley.

[FLS]

Which the ladder lets you now judge with more precision.

The pitch ladder only shows you what angle you ended up with.  It doesn't show you where to start diving. You aren't adjusting your dive angle to match the pitch ladder, you're pointing at the target aim point. You find the start of your dive and set your dive angle with the magic of the right triangle, using your known height and desired dive angle to figure the ground distance to the initial point. With experience the correct point "looks right". The pitch ladder doesn't improve that.

[Wiley]

The pitch ladder only shows you what angle you ended up with.  It doesn't show you where to start diving. You aren't adjusting your dive angle to match the pitch ladder, you're pointing at the target aim point. You find the start of your dive and set your dive angle with the magic of the right triangle, using your known height and desired dive angle to figure the ground distance to the initial point. With experience the correct point "looks right". The pitch ladder doesn't improve that.

Exactly my point.  "Looks right" takes experience.  30 degrees dive angle on a pitch ladder takes eyeballs and a working monitor.

Just say for example, I wanted to jabo on a 30 degree dive angle.  I could up in the Alpha arena 10 minutes from now, climb to 10k, roll over and when the number 30 hash was about even with the target, start diving.  I could then reup, climb to 25k, and repeat the procedure and get exactly the same dive angle.

To accomplish the same thing using your method, I have to figure the ground distance to the initial point and there's PLENTY of room for judgement error.  It's like trying to estimate distance versus using a rangefinder.  Much more precision utilizing the tool than is available without a lot more effort and learning to judge.

Again, it just takes away a lot of the flavor of learning to do it versus having a numbered sighting aid that just skips straight to the desired result.  I get it, that's what most people who game want.  I just happen not to like it.

Wiley.

[FLS]

Just say for example, I wanted to jabo on a 30 degree dive angle.  I could up in the Alpha arena 10 minutes from now, climb to 10k, roll over and when the number 30 hash was about even with the target, start diving.  I could then reup, climb to 25k, and repeat the procedure and get exactly the same dive angle.

You can only see about 10 degrees down on the pitch ladder in level flight. You'd be better off using a cockpit reference if the nose view allows it.

[Wiley]

You can only see about 10 degrees down on the pitch ladder in level flight. You'd be better off using a cockpit reference if the nose view allows it.

By rolling over and/or going nose-low, you can see the pitch ladder down to the necessary angle.  The altitude change from going nose low or rolling no longer throws your right triangle off because you know exactly where you have wound up for your dive angle and can fine tune it with precision on your way down.

Using the ladder, you don't have to do anything other than line up the hash mark for a level of precision that takes a good deal of effort and experience to attain otherwise.  You do not have to figure out where that cockpit reference is, you do not have to know your altitude.  You line up the hologram on your target and press the button at the right time.  The only variable left to judge is sight picture, which will now be closer to the same every time because you're at the same angle every time.

Wiley.