How do you guys tweak your head tracker for 109?

[Blackdog_kt]

I can't call this is bug, it's the outcome of combining a new and an old feature into a single implementation.

Up to IL2:1946 we had the "gunsight view". In the new sim the function is renamed, it's supposed to simulate how pilots loosen or tighten their straps.

Currently it works just like the old gunsight view, with a bit of a stabilizing effect and limited amount of movement (not just head movement, since after some point you need to turn your torso as well to look behind you and this is what the straps restrict) once the straps are tightened. It's not the idea that's flawed, it's just that the implementation might be in need of a bit of tweaking.

In the priority bugs thread linked a couple of posts above, someone said that sitting in a real cockpit and tightening the straps doesn't restrict your motion so much that you can't look back.
On the other hand, having watched the youtube videos of the RAF pilot giving an appraisal on the Spit and 109, it seems like the cockpits of WWII aircraft are not modern, comfy ergonomic places but are so confined the guy was having trouble turning around to check six without even putting on the straps at all.

Tweak this, improve it, make it optional through a difficulty setting, it's all fine with me. I just can't help but feel that calling it a bug is stretching it though.

A bunch of similar issues have cropped up and a lot of people ask for some "holding of the hand". I'm fine with it, let's just not make it a default for everyone. Some people actually prefer things being difficult in a realistic fashion (harder doesn't always mean more realistic, but it does in quite a few cases, these we need to be able to have in the sim) so that they can get a better feel of how much of a pain in the behind it was just to operate a complex, non-ergonomic machine like the fighters of the day.

First it was the mechanical tachometers and the negative G cut-out in the Spit and Hurri, developers caved in to pressure from a number of people and changed them for everyone instead of making them optional. Then people started asking for the level stabilizer to be brought back when
a) luftwaffe bombers have autopilots and
b) a much better system could be used for those that lack autopilots (the Blenheim and Br.20), one that simulates how the bombardier actually guides the pilot through a bomb run.

I mean, what's next, instead of fine-tuning the new CEM we should take it away from the sim completely? This is just an example mind you, i don't mean anybody is advocating it (in fact, most people who try the new CEM like it), i'm just making a hypothesis to illustrate the point: if anyone wants things to be easier, they should ask for an option in the difficulty/realism settings so that they can turn off things that annoy them.

I'm not here to tell people how to enjoy their simming. All i'm saying is that making things hard just for the sake of it across the board is just as counter-productive as making things easy for playability's sake alone.

There are people who like facing such difficulties during gameplay because it forces us to change the way we used to fight in IL2:1946 (otherwise it's 1946 all over again, just with better graphics) into something that's more closely attuned to the deliberate, careful and mostly pre-planned nature of how it actually happened: work the engine and plane carefully, get into a position of advantage, swoop in for the kill and get out before they know you're there.

These people should have a choice too. Realism has many aspects and while FM/DM and armaments may be realistic within the limits of available technology, the tactics, general behaviour and flying habits of the average IL2 flier is definitely not. We now have difficulty options that enable us to see the penalty of such behaviour, it's one more type of gameplay and makes things more diverse. Why cripple it for everyone that likes it when it's possible to just turn it off if i don't like it?

I'm not directing this against anyone in particular, i just think that "make things easier" requests don't classify as bugs, they should be optional and not mandatory for everyone

[IvanK]

Snip from Blackdog_Kt's post above:

"First it was the mechanical tachometers and the negative G cut-out in the Spit and Hurri, developers caved in to pressure from a number of people and changed them for everyone instead of making them optional."

Apologies for the thread drift but just a point of order and to set the record straight on the above snippet.

The Negative G cutout was exhaustively researched and proven too sensitive. Research involved discussion with 2 current UK early model Spitfire pilots and a visit to the National Archives (one of many). The attached jpgs from a UK Archive document on the matter. As can be seen in the archive document the measured critical value is +0.1G i.e. a reduction of 0.9G from 1G flight, this from instrumented aircraft looking into this issue.





With respect the "Mechanical tachos" and needle bounce. The RPM fluctuations initially shown bore no resemblance to the real case with respect to the RR Merlin... though for a poorly maintained M14P engine might have some truth . What we see now is pretty close to the mark. How do we know that ? Discussion with a couple of current Spitfire pilots flying RR Merlin Spitfires (one a personal friend who flies both RR and Packard spits). (Packard Merlins have Electrical tachos whilst RR Merlins have mechanical). A commercialy available DVD that has a MKII Spit performing a complete display with a lot of really good cockpit footage with the tacho clearly visible. In addition discussion with two current maintenance chiefs for two well known Spitfire operators. All of these discussions came out with the same thing ... pretty much rock steady RPM indications.

Things wernt/arnt changed on a whim but based on the best level of information that can be found.

[Blackdog_kt]

Disregard my previous example then, i guess you get what i'm trying to say anyway.

I'm more than happy to be corrected if it means we're getting an accurate sim.

[335th_GRAthos]

thanks for sharing this IvanK !

[IvanK]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Disregard my previous example then, i guess you get what i'm trying to say anyway.

I'm more than happy to be corrected if it means we're getting an accurate sim.

yep I know exactly what your saying and I agree