Friday 2010-01-22 Screenshots AND Discussion Thread

[Skoshi Tiger]

Hey everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I have my pilots licences (though it has been a few years since I flew last) and in my opinion the head shake is probably under modeled if anything.

Heres a small video from a head cam in a light plane doing aerobatics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKMIP2GuP7Q

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Hey everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I have my pilots licences (though it has been a few years since I flew last) and in my opinion the head shake is probably under modeled if anything.

Opinion has nothing to do with facts,

ultralight weight under 1000lbs
Spitfire weight 6500lbs

In your mind/opinion they are the same/comparable ..... physics says different. Lets let even talk about structural rigidity....
Headshake is wrong in that vid .... not even close to realistic ...... defending it merely shows the ignorance of posters.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by 13th Hsqn Protos

Opinion has nothing to do with facts,

ultralight weight under 1000lbs
Spitfire weight 6500lbs

Protos, It has nothing to do with the mass of the aircraft. The head shake modeled simuates the movement of the pilots head reacting to the movements of the aircraft.

And except within the members of this forum there is a limits to the mass of a human head and in general it is several orders of magnitude smaller than the weight of the aircraft be it 1000lbs or 6500lbs.

Originally Posted by 13th Hsqn Protos

Opinion has nothing to do with facts,

In your mind/opinion they are the same/comparable ..... physics says different. Lets let even talk about structural rigidity....

Yes Protos, I believe the same laws of physics should be used to simulate the movement of a pilots head in what ever aircraft they are flying. Please check with you high school physics teacher and get back to me on that one.

Originally Posted by 13th Hsqn Protos

Headshake is wrong in that vid .... not even close to realistic ......

That is an opinion of yours I disagree with it it is my right

Originally Posted by 13th Hsqn Protos

defending it merely shows the ignorance of posters.

I could not have put it better myself

[proton45]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Proton, It has nothing to do with the mass of the aircraft.



Yes Proton, I believe the same laws of physics should be used to simulate the movement of a pilots head in w

He is "Protos"... I'm "Proton".

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by proton45

He is "Protos"... I'm "Proton".

My Bad, Sorry!

[Tbag]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Protos, It has nothing to do with the mass of the aircraft. The head shake modeled simuates the movement of the pilots head reacting to the movements of the aircraft.

And the mass of the aircraft has a lot to do with the aircrafts movements. The heavier an aircraft, the more energy needed to accelerate it. And I'm perfectly sure that the SoW team is more than aware of all this

[dduff442]

I don't know about anyone else, but I've already entered drool mode at the prospect of using the night-landing and precision navigation devices.

If SoW comes out in the autumn, I should be fully qualified in flying 1940 bombers by 2012. If that isn't a useful life-skill, what is?

[Matze81]

Hi, how are you guys?

Obviously I'm new here, although I've been reading along in this forum already for quite a while now.

Concerning the Spitfire video, I'm really glad that it got leaked, (Don't be to hard on the poor guy, who uploaded it!!!) because, I really wasn't sure anymore whether Storm of War would be as awesome as I would like it to be, especially talking about graphics!

Don't get me wrong, the 3D-Models look amazing, but I had no idea, how the whole thing would look and feel, when everything comes together.

That's why I love the video so much! Dynamic shadowing, nice reflections, beautiful clouds. Even though we don't see no landtextures or an external view of the airplane, I think the game looks really good already! (not just compared to Il-2 but also WoP!)

It would be superkind of you guys, if you could upload a similar video featuring a Luftwaffe fighter. The 109 or the Fw-190 maybe?!

Anyways, thanks for the regular updates! Keep 'em coming!

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by Tbag

And the mass of the aircraft has a lot to do with the aircrafts movements. The heavier an aircraft, the more energy needed to accelerate it. And I'm perfectly sure that the SoW team is more than aware of all this

Yes, but because the size mass of the aircraft is large and the mass of the pilots head is small, even slight movements of the the aircraft will have a large effect on the pilots head.

You are 100% right, Oleg and the development team have spent more time working on this than us all combined and they know the direction they want to take!

Originally Posted by Airmalik

Hand held/head mounted cameras always exaggerate the amount of shaking. I've tried simple mounts on the wing strut and landing gear and it's always a struggle to get steady footage. Hand held cameras aren't much better unless the cameraman is very good at damping the little bumps felt while flying but not necessary 'seen'. The lens in this video isn't very wide angle which helps. Just yesterday I was out flying (ultralight) with a friend who was shooting video from the right seat and while editing that video I had to junk pretty much every clip where he tried to zoom even a little. Even at the widest angle the video was shaky at times. The amount of shake in the video was NOTHING like I experienced while flying. So I don't think that camera footage can be used to determine the amount of shake we should see in flight sims.

I must say I'm a bit jelous and would love to see some of your footage. Would the exaggeration your talking about be due to the focal length setting of your video's lens? If you zoom in any movements shakes etcf would become more pronounced, just as if you used a fish eye lens you find them reduced. (Need a photography expert here to help!)

As stated before (and after) by a few people our brains tend to make us ignore the bad effect, my point is that when we try to concentrate on the gun sights this would be one of the times when it would be noticable. You would need to keep your head in a relatively fixed position (within the viewing angle of the refector sight) and thats when you'ld notice the movement.

My link to the video was not an ideal choice, but it did show the effect I was talking about.

What would they say if you did an experiment and put a post and ring sight on your ultra-light and ..... Hmmm! On second thoughts it might raise a few eye-brows :0

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

The human head, spine and soft parts makes for a pretty good damper of vibrations and acceleration. There's a certain delay involved, and a lot of damping. I've even heard from someone with some credentials that there's a formula for calculating it.

100% agree with you BUT 'pritty good' does not equate to a 'SteadyCam' experience.

Pass on the details of the research tho the development team. As with the ricochet information they were looking for, I'm sure they are trying to make the sim as realistic as posible. Within the bounds of Artistic License (been itching to use it in context- sorry) and the huge number of other priorities I'm sure it could be useful to them.

Really looking forward to the next update!
Cheers to all

[Avimimus]

It's also important to realise that the eye, muscular system have some ability to compensate for vibration and the human mind has an ability to interpret movement. The subjective impression of shaking may be much less for a human being in the actual plane than for a human watching a recording made with a camera on that plane.

So, it would be nice if this were a customisable feature.