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

[Widow17]

Originally Posted by _ITAF_Gianpaolo

otherwise it's like going in a emergency simulator... ask real pilots if they like it...

I like it, its my sparetime and i love to have my simulatior as realistic as possible. Though if someone would stand behind me ready to say ive lost my job if i fail, well ...thats no fun and i think this is the difference here, because this is stress. For me its just fun.

[klem]

Originally Posted by Seeker

I think you'd have more fun spending the money on extra controls.

I understand the wish for click pits, but for serious simmers, a better implementation of UDP speed would have been more useful.

I think it's fair to recognise that most of us spend far, far more than the £30 game price on extra equipment to experience the game.

I'd much rather see development effort used to support some of the fantastic hardware that's about these days rather than adding functions to a mouse; which not even an Airbus 380 cockpit uses.

If you got your touch screen, where would you enable it in Conf.ini?

"Enabling" may lie in the touch screen itself which would simply report 'mouseclick' on the screen area you touch. I guess TouchScreen=1 may be required and perhaps some interface code unless Windows has the capability to recognise it? They've been in use for years on simulator instructor's consoles and the like.

[Blackdog_kt]

It's simple. Extra features require extra controls because there's only so much you can map to a keyboard or even HOTAS without forgetting what you need to push, extra controls require money, so it ends being a choice between

a) enabling a cheaper, universal control device that every PC comes equipped with (mouse) for people that don't have the spare cash, while still being possible to use dedicated controls at the same time for those who want to buy expensive peripherals or build their own custom ones

b) not including new, realism enhancing features because some players are averse to the interface choice (even though there's clearly more than one choice and probably everyone can tune their controls to their preference) or

c) making a sim that only people with $1500 worth of extra peripherals can fly properly.

I'll let you all decide for yourselves which is better for the community and also the potential sales of the sim. It's "everyone can play this by using the right realism settings and controls" VS "only a small percentage can use this properly" VS "let's make it all easy mode because the mouse is not an ideal interfacing option", it's not even a valid dilemma.

I also think there's a part of the community that just wants to cruise around on WEP all day long without having to monitor anything (like in IL2:1946) and think to themselves that it's how it was done in real life, rather than have to face the fact that their preferred gameplay style does not qualify as full switch anymore. There's nothing wrong flying at reduced difficulty settings as long as i'm having fun, that is unless i fly for bragging rights and not fun



It's perfectly fine making the difficult things optional. What's wrong is making the easy way mandatory.

[Seeker]

Cheap, universal gaming device.

Such as the latest Nvidea quad card set up and the best chip set money can buy?

Please.

You know why they left out SLI? For the children... that's why, think of the children.

[617Squadron]

Can I march into the land of the fanbois and point something out...?

[Captain Obvious on]
Why do you think you add tracers to the loadout in the ammo belts? If you get close enough in and are in the same horizontal plane (no matter what the angle relative to the horizon), your tracers will tell you if you are on the target or not. You can do that by eye alone.

Fanbois, eh? Sheesh....
[Captain Obvious off]

[ATAG_Doc]

Wow this topic has legs. There is a solution. Fly birds of prey. Their sights are centered. That would be a great fix for anyone wanting centered sights.

[617Squadron]

I'm sorry, but there are people in here arguing about the ME 109's gunsight as if they are the sniper in the bell tower in the film Saving Private Ryan, or are Jude Law and Ed Harris in Enemy At The Gates. You simply don't get that level of luxury to pick a shot in a real air battle.

In a dogfight, you barely have a second or two to get a burst of fire off at an enemy aircraft and your tracers, along with the nose of the aircraft, are your best guide in this situation.

[flyingblind]

Originally Posted by 617Squadron

Can I march into the land of the fanbois and point something out...?

[Captain Obvious on]
Why do you think you add tracers to the loadout in the ammo belts? If you get close enough in and are in the same horizontal plane (no matter what the angle relative to the horizon), your tracers will tell you if you are on the target or not. You can do that by eye alone.

Fanbois, eh? Sheesh....
[Captain Obvious off]

Yes, but you are in danger of wasting precious ammunition just to check if you are on target. The gunsight will give you a good chance of being close if not dead on, the tracers will allow you to make the small final adjustment if necessary or keep you on target or stop firing if your aiming is clearly out.

[617Squadron]

Peering through the gunsight as you describe won't help you at all if you are not directly on the target's six and you need to get a deflection shot off, ahead of the target, especially in a turning battle as you simply won't have the time. You'd see nothing but sky through the gunsight.

It may work on bombers but not on fighters, especially against an experienced pilot. It's better to get a 'feel' through experience as to where the shots will go by line-of-sight and the plane of the aircraft, as that's more instinctive and intuitive, but that's just my opinion.

Flying in a straight line for more than two seconds whilst in a furball is likely to get you shot down and you may be doing just that, while you are picking your shot.

[flyingblind]

I haven't read all this post but I am with Lixma on this and he is right in saying you cannot replicate the way a 109 Revi sight works in real life on a flat computer screen and his solution of the sight ring floating outside the glass screen is probably the closest you can get.
To get an idea of the effect make a 3 inch square from card or paper. Draw a large gunsight ring and cross hair to fill the square. Sit in front of your monitor and holding the card in your right hand keep looking at the screen with both eyes open and move the card in from the right a few inches from your nose untile the centre of the cross is straight in front. You will see the cross and the computer screen in line and in front of you. Close you right eye and you will see the screen then close your left eye and your view will be obscured by the card. You can see that it would work much better if the card was clear glass or plastic, the sight was illuminated and it was given the correct focus for your eye.
Also, in real life it wasn't a case of peering through the gunsight or lining up as the optics of the sight meant the cross hairs or ring was floating in front of you eyes in the correct position regardless of head movement, all you needed to do was keep the glass screen between your eyes or eye and the target and manoever the plan to get in position. Those utube vids posted earlier in this thread show the way it worked. And sure, an experienced pilot could pull off all sorts of snap shots and the like but he was probably no more relying on tracers than taking careful aim.