"Situational Awareness"/RL vs Sim

If I'm off here, just tell me to shut up, but here goes:
It seems to me the RoF devs might actually be listening to it's users
We're all aware of the shortcomings of flight sim views - a human has about 165° view. Sim= 90° maybe 120° if there's a genuine "widescreen" function. Lots of sims have "enemy" (friendly too - blue)markers on the edge of the screen and this is some help in that regard. There's also sometimes the "radar" HUD item. I don't know yet if RoF has Player to Target and Target to Player outside views but that is cool.
Call the following, QUESTION 1:
Do you think these "compensators" are important to flight simming?
My opinion is it's just not "realistic" without them. Sure, it's not realistic with them either, but more realistic than not having them.
Another shortcoming is lack of visibility of your target regarding struts, braces, cowling, wings and the like getting in the way. Most of this is not a factor in RL because you have binocular vision and can move your head and stretch your neck. There's been a lot of difficulty adequately compensating for this(RB3D transparent 'pit, etc.). There are sims where you can move your head but it's just too much key presses to deal with.
Call the following, QUESTION 2:
My idea: Allow the target to be visible "on top" of the cockpit view to the extent that you could move your head/stretch your neck. Naturally there would be a cutoff point somewhere below the cowling view, but you could see the target below the cowling to that cutoff point. The target could be some degree of opaque in these spots. The target shape itself would determine the area of translucency.
I like it, whaddya think?

In your list of compensators are you referring to the blue arrows and radar maps?

If so, radar maps are flat out cheats, IMHO, especially in WWI aircraft like in RoF. They give way more situational awareness than is actually available to the pilot. Same with making the pilot's own aircraft translucent or overlaying an indication of target position when it goes behind a strut/cowl/etc. Sure, this makes it easier to track the enemy, but a real pilot would lose the target as well. It could be argued that this symbology could be a suitable simulation for the pilot moving his head to maintain sight of a target going behind a strut or just beyond the cowl (especially for folks without head-tracking systems like TrackIR), but it would have to be limited to only those areas the pilot would be able to see.

Padlocking could also be considered a cheat, since one could keep hitting the padlock button to try and detect enemy aircraft, but it pretty reasonable for those pilots not flying with head-trackers.

The markers on the edge of the FOV simulate peripheral vision, so, in my opinion, they have some merit. I would still choose to fly with them off, though.

Hello.

Do I think the compensators are important for flight simming? Not for me; never used 'em. I don't like being shown where planes are outside my FOV; too fake. I feel the same way about padlock. Being able to track targets is a lot of the fun for me. The view in the cockpit isn't great, but remember that many goggles WW1 pilots wore limited peripheral vision a great deal. Also, they couldn't turn their necks 180 degrees to look behind them, either, as we can in the sim. Strapped into a plane via shoulder harnesses without inertia reels, you can't look/see behind you like that. You have to either turn or yaw the plane to clear six o'clock.

Regarding struts, cowlings, etc getting in the way, it most certainly was a factor. My real air time is just in modern civil aircraft but you'd be amazed how a cockpit frame can completely hide an airplane that is approaching very close to you. You have to continually bob and weave to look around struts, frames, plumbing, etc. Improved visibility is the reason why Albatros relocated the radiator and its associated plumbing from center to starboard starting with the Albatros D.II, not for reasons of the "pilot being scalded" as is often erroneously thought. Proof of this is that they continued to make airplanes with central radiators. Pilots of Albatros C.XIIs, for example, weren't less susceptible to scalding than were pilots of D-types, but pilots of Ds needed the better forward visiblity to stalk and attack enemy airplanes afforded by an offset radiator that the C-type pilots did not.

Too many key presses to look around things? Can't argue with that since that is your experience. I just look around with the mouse or Track IR, or you can yaw the nose side-to-side with the rudder pedals to visually clear the airspace. I wouldn't mind the implementation of compensators for guys who have a hard time tracking enemy planes because most certainly it would be a selectable feature and I could just not utilize it.

"Champ on downwind, I have you in sight."
"Cessna, where are you?"
"Half mile your three on downwind. You go first."

(Frantic looking about)

"Where the f--- is he?" I grumble.
"Lift your wing a bit" says my passenger.

(small slip)

"Roger, Cessna, I got you."

It's been noted that I can really spot aircraft while flying a RL aircraft much better than most (wonder where I learned that!), but you'd be amazed at how hard it can be to find them sometimes, even when they're up close and telling you where they are.

Have to agree with responders, I have no issues with how the sim plays visually. If you aren't using TrackIR, or the freeware FaceNoTrackIR, then you are really diminishing your experience. It is simply worth the effort, and cash if you go for TIR.

If you want to have the in-game map on, and implement distant icons for the map, then by all means do so. Nobody can pass judgement on how you want to play your sim, just don't look for sympathy from the more hardcore Heck, I can't even stand to have a pre-encounter/pre-spawn stutter that announces some airplane (friend or foe) has entered my virtual sphere of existance!

I think what REALLY needs to be done is for the devs to implement better anti-aircraft artillery AI, and use correct AAA bursts (white for entente, black for central), so that the bursts indicate where just beyond visual range aircraft are. This WAS how pilots detected most of the aircraft BVRy.

Padlock and icons are for wimps. They only hurt you in the long run. You'll become a much better pilot when you learn to fly without them.

JFM,

I dont think most these WW1 birds had shoulder harnesses. Just a lap belt or rope.

Thus explaining the pads on the MG butts. Still must have hurt even with the pads.

The belt was pretty wide - the examples I've seen they are a good two feet wide, covering from belt to sternum.

?

LOL, looks like most opinions are for sticking with the unrealism of unassisted views rather than the unrealism of compensators!
I hope you all realize that I'd not intended anything extreme, I hate plane icons and don't have TrackIR.
When I made "SLIMPITS" for HASP I could fly and fight quite adequately without transparent cockpit.

For me, whether or not icons are justified depends on aircraft resolution. In RoF, I can easily pick out different aircraft types from far away because they still retain their salient features.

On the other hand, in older sims where aircraft models do not retain their salient features at a distance, where they are all just little blobs, icons make sense.

What doesn't make sense is the tough guy attitude. Some of us are getting old and can't see as well as we used to, some have small monitors, etc. Some of the best virtual pilots I ever saw were back in Warbirds in the '90s, when 800x600 was pretty sweet, and icons with range markers were more or less obligatory (once we got to 1024x768 people began to experiment with more limited icon settings). If you put these guys into the sims of today, without icons, I am highly confident they would still give us a good thrashing.

To me the OP has it backwards. RoF gives the player using full-real settings huge advantages over a real pilot. First of all, that gives the player an ability to see very small planes at over 10 miles regardless of contrast. That might sound reasonable enough to readers of exagerated accounts by famous combat pilots, but not to real pilots who spot planes dozens of times every day they fly. Also, the ability to widen and narrow your FOV is obviously something a human cannot do. The default view seen when you first join the pit is probably about right. Once we zoom back we have eliminated any hold on realism. Yes, it is true that we humans have a large perceived FOV but most of that is pretty useless unless the object in the extremes of that view is large and moving relative to the viewer. Pilots are trained to scan the sky so that the narrow cone that really does all the "seeing" covers the whole horizon.

I think you are exaggerating now. With the map and map a/c icons turned on, I cannot see the pixel(s) denoting a far aircraft outside 5 km let alone the map grid 'box' which is 10 km. Perhaps monitor resolution has something to do with this (I have 1920 x 1200) but 10 miles??? 10 miles is about 16 km, and I challenge you to prove that you can see a distant a/c outside the 10 km box that is on the in-game map.

Far be it for me to judge, and I can understand if you are on a tight budget, but if this is some ideological thing do yourself a favor and get TrackIR, or try the free FaceNoTrackIR. I can guarantee you will not regret it; it will supercharge your enjoyment level. I rank TIR second only to a joystick as a necessity for combat flight sims. Others will agree.

IIRC the maximum distance for aircraft rendering in RoF is 9km. Manipulating the FoV is the only way you'll see them from so far out, however, as RoF doesn't render a giant "dot" in place of an aircraft.

As for controllers/hardware, my list would be:

1. Joystick
2. Rudder Pedals
3. TIR (optional)

If you never learned to manipulate a viewing system proficiently back when TIR didn't exist, then you might think it's necessary. It is not. Some of the best pilots in RoF do not use TIR, including Peter Z, Vaal, and Viks. Fwiw, yes, I do own one.

I agree twice.

Some die-hard "I don't need TrackIR!" folks view that as an elitest statement. I promise you, I am exactly the opposite of 'elitest.' But it pokes directly at the OP's original question. By far, well beyond 'HUD' cheat markers, aircraft labels, or wonder woman cockpits, TrackIR trumps all of those combined in terms of achieving and keeping situational awareness.

...and so how is that the people I mentioned above have better SA than 99% of trackir owners?

Because they are Gods. For us mortals, Trackir is the 2nd most important piece of equiptment after the joystick.

I find the RoF experience when coupled with TrackIr to be very realistic even if the view distance, general graphical appearance isn't. I find myself flying 90% of the time looking behind me, side slipping to see what is behind the cowling/wing and squinting into the sky looking for what might be waiting to pounce on me. Last night I was on a realistic server with DH2's and EIII's and had one of the most nerve wracking, palm-sweating experiences to date. Climbing to intercept a recon plane with the wind and engine sound drowning out everything I, after a long period of time, was able to close with my target. As I opened up on him his observer did the same, I weaved and was only able to spray him with ineffective fire when suddenly I was struck, what followed was a frightening silence, a ringing in my ears and a red darkness closing up my vision. Wounded but still in control I pressed on and kept firing, I was aware of another friendly aircraft nearby who was also firing and it didn't seem like either of us were going to get this bugger, I climbed to his 5 o'clock his 4 and then was struck again this time my plane veered, rolled over and we clipped each other. As the plane shed it's wings and it's spin increased I thought how awful and terrifying this would have been to be part of and I was also amazed that it felt so visceral. It might not be just like real life but, having no icons, radar maps or any immersion killing game features it was as "realistic" as you could get without needing medical help. I only wish "Cliffs" was as good.

No, not an ideological thing and I am somewhat financially challenged. I have just been looking around as to what track IR is. I have tiny security cameras that have IR and see in the dark. I wonder if I can use one for track IR. Thing is, how to connect it to a computer but I haven't researched that yet.
You also need 3 points of reference (IR leds?) for the camera to see for the tracking program?

If you use the freetrack software you can use a single light/ir source for 2 degrees of freedom.

Face No Track IR LINK HERE and is a free download.
You just need to have a web camera, which can be pretty cheap (compared to TrackIR), and the camera/software tracks the 'landmarks' on your face, no clips or led's, etc. I think it works better if you have a big nose though...

OK, thanks, that'll get me set up when I'm ready. It makes a lot of sense, one hand for the kboard, one for the stick and one for the mouse was never very popular with me (where's my third hand? ) , games like GTA IV come to mind.
Another possible use would be to free the stick hand instead by using TIR or FaceNoIR to fly the plane (or steer a vehicle in other sims).

Of course some of us are elitist for other reasons.

Interesting article Dart, well written self-reflection on the community, if perhaps a bit pedantic on creating artificial pecking-order categories...

As I read "Confessions of an Elitist", written in 2006 (I might add the year when I got back into flight sims after a long grad school hiatus -first was Red Baron--original...felt I needed to say that ) I was reminded of the three-ring "reserve" I've read about in active WWI squadrons, probably infantry platoons as well I imagine. Our virtual community seems to fit the hierarchy well, if you juggle around the variables some...

Paraphrased from Donald Jack's book, "Three Cheers for Me":
There is the reserve of veterans towards newcomers, not necessarily a snobbish reserve but rather a "wait and see" attitude, because so many new pilots came, flew for a few days, and then headed West. It wasn't worth getting to know them. Everyone is polite and friendly towards them, always willing to answer questions, but the petals of the veteran's personalities only opened up in the warmth of their own company. A veteran didn't have to be an ace, but should be at least in the positive credit, such as one victory whether made up of a collection of partial kills or not.

However, it was actually a three ring reserve, for at the center were the "aces" around whom circled the second ring, those who had settled down and became useful fighters. On the outside looking enviously in, were the new boys. There were a few subtle classifications in the hierarchy, such as being able to wear wings on a regimental tunic, signifying trench experience.