BF109 - Can't we just have the gunsight in the middle?

[Lixma]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

You do realize the sight only reflects on the small rectangular piece of glass, not the entire cockpit Hence the angle of the small piece of glass.

You do realize how Revi sights worked?

The Revi was used with both eyes open. The reticle image was formed fully on the right eye. No leaning necessary.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by Lixma

You do realize how Revi sights worked?

The Revi was used with both eyes open. The reticle image was formed fully on the right eye. No leaning necessary.

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

Your wrong, you had to lean with slightly with the 109 and 190.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blem3FlkaMc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EayasHQYEGM&NR=1

[Baron]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Your wrong, you had to lean with slightly with the 109 and 190.

Fine, in that case we should all petition so that everyone else have to press ctlrF2 to lean forward and hence get the zoomed in restricted field of view per default.

U know, im perfectly capable irl of leaning to the right WITHOUT zooming in/lean forward.

I mean, we all want it to be realistic, right?

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by Baron

Fine, in that case we should all petition so that everyone else have to press ctlrF2 to lean forward and hence get the zoomed in restricted field of view per default.

U know, im perfectly capable irl of leaning to the left WITHOUT zooming in/lean forward.

I mean, we all want it to be realistic, right?

Yes, thats why its going to stay like it is right now

[Erkki]

As it is, it gives a huge unrealistic advantage to 6dof users. I dont have a TrackIR and I'm not going to get one. The great majority of the people buying the game will be similar to me in that regard.

I cannot see why simple offset camera position(without leaning forward, zooming, restricting views) is not possible.

Either offset camera position OR full reticle visible, pseudo-simulating 2-eye stereo vision, with 50% of the reticle glowing maybe 50 or 25% of the intensity.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by Erkki

As it is, it gives a huge unrealistic advantage to 6dof users. I dont have a TrackIR and I'm not going to get one. The great majority of the people buying the game will be similar to me in that regard.

I cannot see why simple offset camera position(without leaning forward, zooming, restricting views) is not possible.

Either offset camera position OR full reticle visible, pseudo-simulating 2-eye stereo vision, with 50% of the reticle glowing maybe 50 or 25% of the intensity.

Get a free track then?

[Erkki]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Get a free track then?

I'm not going to get any kind of head tracking. I've survived now 10 years without.

edit: how silly is this really? TrackIR 6dof crowd forcing people to adapt to THEIR hardware, and unrealistic advantages? Is this a simulation game or not? By whose standards, and to what extent?

[Lixma]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Your wrong, you had to lean with slightly with the 109 and 190.

How many eyes does a camera have? = 1

How many eyes does the virtual pilot in CoD have? = 1

How many eyes does a (healthy) 109 pilot have? = 2

An illustration....

Here's what a Cyclops would see if he flew the BF-109. As you can see it's exactly the same standard view we have in CoD. On eye, straight down the centerline....




Now here's what a real 109 pilot would see. A pilot with binocular vision. A pilot with the reticle being projected fully into one eye.....




At the moment people are taking the current Cyclops view as 'Realism'.

[b101uk]

Originally Posted by Lixma

How many eyes does a camera have? = 1

How many eyes does the virtual pilot in CoD have? = 1

How many eyes does a (healthy) 109 pilot have? = 2

An illustration....

Now here's what a real 109 pilot would see. A pilot with binocular vision. A pilot with the reticle being projected fully into one eye.....




At the moment people are taking the current Cyclops view as 'Realism'.

err no, because from the edge of the reflector glass to the centre of the reflector glass is wider than the distance from the centreline of the nose to the centre of the right eye, only if the reflector glass from its left edge to is centre matched the average anatomical distance of the nose centreline vs. right eye would you see the above.

in reality with both eyes open and a wider reflector glass from its left edge to it centre you would get about <~66% of the reticle

To get the effect you depict the reflector glass would need its left edge central to your nose, the glass would need to be ~3” (~75mm) wide (~1.5" (~37.5mm) to reticle centre).

[Lixma]

Originally Posted by b101uk

err no, because from the edge of the reflector glass to the centre of the reflector glass is wider than the distance from the centreline of the nose to the centre of the right eye,

I just measured the distance from the centre of my nose to middle of my pupil....37mm. Double that and we get 74mm (3 inch).

Now, I just tried Googling 'Revi dimensions' with no appreciable success but 74mm/3 inch on my tape measure looks pretty close to the width of an actual Revi's reflector.

To get the effect you depict the reflector glass would need its left edge central to your nose, the glass would need to be ~3” (~75mm) wide (~1.5" (~37.5mm) to reticle centre).

On screen in CoD the left hand edge of the Revi is bang down the centre-line (give or take 2mm), and those figures look good to me and confirm what my tape measure is suggesting.