Quote:
Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM
No, it's Maddox Games the job to fix that. The "guy who released the widescreen mod" has to use a "not so ellegant" approach using [DeviceLink] to change the FOV, but someone with free access to code can achieve the same thing with a simple and stable solution. The mod for FOV change runs in a background process, a lot of trouble.
My simple point is: have 6DOF and larger FOV are very simple to put into IL-2 as "official", and the FOV issue can be easily solved by someone with dev support. But I know what happens: larger FOV = bigger distortion in image, cockpits made just for smaller FOVs and 4:3 monitors or 3 displays in mind.
But I, the humble customer, will like to have the CHANCE to suffer with all the bigger distortion in my 16:10 monitor, but I can't have this opportunity, because someone tell me that it's violate some "quality standard" stataments.
I don't think it's right. If people never will revamp the IL-2 cockpits, what's the problem to give people the CHOICE of have some features at some cost "officialy" and without the need to run some troublesome process in background?
It's not "quality control". It's not to do at all a simple thing. I wasn't ask for some that will give a lot of trouble, but simple thing that's already functional (6DOF) and something simple (bigger than 90º FOV setting). If someone make "official" just another option in "CONTROLS" as "100º FOV" a lot of mine and others virtual pilots problems are solved, and if you dislike 100º FOV, just don't use it.
Excuse me all the official patchers, but it's not difficult at all to put some new FOV setting. With that, I can use one mod less.
|
I agree that it's ok to have a choice. However, having a choice to do things the way you personally like means mods, because none of us has a private, individual contract with the developer.
So, official patches are about having the choice to use what the developer wants to give you within the compromises that have to be made due to a variety of factors, from cost and time involved that is taken away from other projects, right down to the developer's personal opinion of what he wants to include and how it should be done.
If i go to a gallery and start looking at paintings to buy i decide based on what's being offered, i don't go to the painter and tell him to use a wider brush or a different colour. This is like the official development process and marketing of the software.
If i want to change it myself i can buy the painting and make changes to it, this is like modding.
Finally, if i want a custom painting exactly the way i like it, but i can't paint it myself and need someone else to do it, then i hire the painter to do a custom job. This is not like buying a mass marketed product off the self, but like finacing a developer to make my personal dream simulator, which i'm sure you can realize none of us can do.
If this was a game where you have to buy every single flyable or map separately, i would agree that the customer is being wronged. However, IL2 has had loads of free add-on content, both official and unofficial. In that sense, both we and the Maddox team are better off moving on and working towards SoW.
It's all a matter of content and support vs dollar when we are talking about the customer value of a product and IL2 is pretty damn cheap for what it offers. Just like i said before it's not about "right" and "wrong" features, but about perspective. It's perfectly fine to like and want thesε features. Where you go wrong is thinking the developer can be held responsible for providing what each one of us personally requests, instead of focusing on the bigger picture.