Zuti MDS Still Not Ready For Prime Time.

[II/JG54_Emil]

@ Tempest:

And it seems to be about pride and arrogance, judging by some post here.

[WTE_Galway]

Let us bear in mind the exact nature of the "glitches" in 6DOF for IL2. The ones some people claim users will happily tolerate apparently. These include:

- gaps or holes that you can see right through when you view a cockpit from a different position

- many cockpits are just flat 2D textures which using a trick to look 3D with switches etc basically drawing them as viewed as they would appear from a center position. These look wrong when viewed from a different position.

Simple story is the mod is a good one and works, but the IL2 cockpits are not suitable for 6DOF and people WILL whine about the "bugs" if its released officially without fixing all those cockpits.

Plus its no great problem for people wanting to get 6DOF to install the mod anyway, so why bother.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Let us bear in mind the exact nature of the "glitches" in 6DOF for IL2. The ones some people claim users will happily tolerate apparently. These include:

- gaps or holes that you can see right through when you view a cockpit from a different position

- many cockpits are just flat 2D textures which using a trick to look 3D with switches etc basically drawing them as viewed as they would appear from a center position. These look wrong when viewed from a different position.

Simple story is the mod is a good one and works, but the IL2 cockpits are not suitable for 6DOF and people WILL whine about the "bugs" if its released officially without fixing all those cockpits.

Plus its no great problem for people wanting to get 6DOF to install the mod anyway, so why bother.

A good point, and I can live without "official" support for 6DOF. The "mod" support does great.

But the FOV issue NOT. And YES, it's really simple with access to code. I'm "assuming" nothing, I'm tired to change FOV settings in a lot of games, some in configs, and some OLD titles. And this feature isn't up to IL-2 because of nothing. It's just changing some parameter.

All the problem is in the "thin" line about the "standards"... I can read all the fanboyishm over TD, they do a great job... But people don't give customers the right to decide what are most needed and desired.

It's plain wrong. Live with that. If "officially" we have 6DOF as it is right now, in the case someone dislikes the "holes", simply don't use it. IL-2 isn't "Counter-Strike" for mature simmers, we don't cry all over the place about "hacks". With wider FOV, same thing.

Raise the "standards" to not deliver some nice features is wrong to this customer here. And I will not endorse the chorus for "please gimme more free content". I'm just assuming TD have the "official" support by Maddox Games to do improvements in IL-2. Well, a lot of people here I believe uses 6DOF and FOV Changer, but have some illogical afraid to put some points over light.

But if Maddox Games don't give more support for IL-2, don't solve the old widescreen support, why care at all about the talking about "mods" and "official patches"? Are all mods, but some of them gives really new functionalities and others are bounded to "standards"... The "non-standard" crew make IL-2 sell untill today.

[julian265]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Let us bear in mind the exact nature of the "glitches" in 6DOF for IL2. The ones some people claim users will happily tolerate apparently. These include:

- gaps or holes that you can see right through when you view a cockpit from a different position

- many cockpits are just flat 2D textures which using a trick to look 3D with switches etc basically drawing them as viewed as they would appear from a center position. These look wrong when viewed from a different position.

Simple story is the mod is a good one and works, but the IL2 cockpits are not suitable for 6DOF and people WILL whine about the "bugs" if its released officially without fixing all those cockpits.

Plus its no great problem for people wanting to get 6DOF to install the mod anyway, so why bother.

I still don't see what's wrong with having 6DoF as a difficulty setting (2DoF being "on", 6DoF "off"), so users and servers can choose if they enable it.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

I fly using FreeTrack and all the others folks who fly online with me believes wider FOV into IL-2 core will be great. Widescreen monitors are default today.

And the point here is: IT'S SIMPLE TO DO, if you have access to code and dev support.

Why don't include that? And why the subject is always ignored by TD? I don't understand.

I'm OK if something will cause a big trouble and work to be putted in IL-2, but simples things, it's beyond reason.

In what world better skis on some plane are a priority in a patch and widescreen full support isn't?!?!

Maybe i didn't explain it well enough, so let's go again. The planned features are desirable by everyone. It's the sequence these features are implemented that people disagree about. Again, just because a lot of people feel widescreen support is a priority doesn't mean that all of them feel the same.

EVERYONE wants widescreen support, but some want triggers or radio navigation or the regiane 2000 even more.

What TD does is work on things that are hard to do without official help (like triggers), while adding a few extras that can be done without official help in order to spice things up and add some variety (like the skis).

What we do is decide how badly we need certain features and then install what we need. If 6DOF is more important to me than the gladiator's skis, i will keep flying 4.09+mods, if the skis are more important to me than 6DOF i will go to 4.10 and wait until the 4.10 compatible mod pack is released. Everyone can choose for themselves, everyone is happy.

I still don't understand why you seem to think your opinion carries a bigger validity or represents the majority of the community. What if it doesn't? What if the rest of the community has a totally different opinion than the people you know? The guys here are not arguing with you because they want to disrespect you, they do it because what you say effectively sounds like this: "the features that i thik are a priority and my personal opinions carry a bigger weight than the rest of you". Maybe you don't mean it and it only seems that way due to the way you say it, but that's how it looks like and some people will find it a bit offensive.

I agree with you that for a 10 year old game i wouldn't mind to have a few extra features even with some glitches. What i disagree with is thinking that everyone feels the same way with us, because a lot clearly don't.

I think your main issue is the widescreen FOV support because you say it is prone to freezes. Well, it's not TD's job to fix that, but the guy's who released the widescreen mod. If that guy wants to he can contact TD, tell them how he does it and ask for their help and TD may decide to help him. However, in order for that to happen he would have to work under TD's quality control standards. Correction, not TD's, but Oleg's standards. It's very simple, mr Maddox says "i can help you make mods into official patches, but if you want my help you'll make it in a way i like too". You either agree to this and get his help in return, or you don't agree and do it by yourself.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I think your main issue is the widescreen FOV support because you say it is prone to freezes. Well, it's not TD's job to fix that, but the guy's who released the widescreen mod. If that guy wants to he can contact TD, tell them how he does it and ask for their help and TD may decide to help him.

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.

[AndyJWest]

...it's Maddox Games the job to fix that.

No it isn't. They are under no obligation to 'fix' anything. Particularly if it involves modifying 10-year-old software to suit more recent hardware, when they are already working on a successor to the application.

You purchased IL-2 as working software. It works, and by the standards of the computer games industry, it works well. That 1C:Maddox have continued to upgrade (for free) is a bonus, not a contractual obligation. If they decide that any upgrades they offer (via official third parties) must maintain the same standards as the existing software, that is their choice (though they may possibly be under contractual obligation to publishers over this). They have a reputation to keep, and may well consider this significant.

[Novotny]

Here's some code I knocked up that might help:

10 print "user says - fix the widescreen, it's easy to do and it's your job to do it"
20 print "dev says - no it's not"
30 print "user says - yes it is & you're not respecting me"
40 goto 10

[Blackdog_kt]

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.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Originally Posted by julian265

I still don't see what's wrong with having 6DoF as a difficulty setting (2DoF being "on", 6DoF "off"), so users and servers can choose if they enable it.

Without wanting to pull up older postings (additionally in a wrong direction in case of the threads initial topic), I want to make a statement to 6DoF:

The problematic part of 6DoF is not only the 'glitches' - its about gameplay and fairness. We are still internaly discussing this and are looking for a good way to implement a kind of realistic head movement - useable for ALL players, also those, who do not own a tracking device. This contains two major points:

1. realistic head movement: 6DoF as it is in mods, is far from realistic. Without going too much into detail - its generally too moveable.

2. 6DoF for everyone: Whatever solution we may find for pt.1, it must be possible to use this with a normal device, that every player has (much probably mouse and/or keyboard)

Its not just about enabling a few more axis.



As for the initial topic, I (we, TD) did agree with the thread starter and we are fighting the bugs. We see no need of blaming Zuti for sloppy work or anything, in fact, its simply a difficult issue and Zuti worked with us as good as he could to get the feature flawlessly into the game. The MDS in 4.10 will be much different in some details than the version available in mods.