mach1muscle351;4187602I like this, if the zoom is the same.
Same old zoom or the same distance away?
turnpipe;4185710Maybe this will solve the view problem for the bf109 anyway. ObjectTemplate.addTemplate Plane_PilotCamera1p ObjectTemplate.setPosition 0/0.80166/-0.99064 http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg253/turnpipe1000/screen006.png?t=1201644447[/QUOTE]
WOW, that looks a hell of alot better, you also get to see more of the cockpit.
Also Songoleti this is NOT IL-2. This is FH, on BF2, which happens to be pretty nasty when it comes to things like hard coding in things that would be best removed or changed. In other words: [QUOTE=Nigosky;4184972]the number 1 problem for airplanes
"Who_Flung_Poo?"Also Songoleti this is NOT IL-2. This is FH, on BF2, which happens to be pretty nasty when it comes to things like hard coding in things that would be best removed or changed.[/quote] Have you even read the first post? I'll have to quote myself. [quote="Songoleti"]I know that is a BF2 engine limitation, but these 3 suggestions I made have nothing to do with the enginge´s limitations.
Let me resume your attitude: BF2 has a bad engine, lets not do any effort to make things better. I'll repeat it in case you don't understand. The 3 points in my first post have nothing to do with enginge limitations. Point 1) involves some extra modeling work, point 2) involves around 2 extra lines of coding and number 3) involves changing some numbers in the damage system file. Aside from the modeling part, everything I've suggested here is too damn easy. I hope some dev reads this.
Songoleti;4190562... I hope some dev reads this.
Probably he did and it's better for you not to see his response couse I don't think it would be something other than flames.
turnpipe;4187747Same old zoom or the same distance away?
The zoom in the same position its at right now. But the regular cockpit view your photobucket thing. Can this be server side modded in?
mach1muscle351;4191217The zoom in the same position its at right now. But the regular cockpit view your photobucket thing. Can this be server side modded in?
I dont know. I just modded it for and example. I think both server files and gamer dude files have too be the same. Punkbuster will kick for any changes too the zip files during online play. This keeps the "average punk" but not a "hacker" from fooling punkbuster.
I didn't make it!
You do feel quite a bit too close to the panel when flying. Found the same thing in FSX I always bring the zoom down to .40 or .30 because it feels more natural. (Partially flown a Cessna and sat in a R-22 and found both to be closer to the .40 zoom.)
:( MMMM improving aviation on FH quite a difficult subject, and god knows how I'd be happy to see some progress there. Since the release, my team and I we've been playing extensively. I've designed a train map to test all materials, with destroyable targets aso aso ... I've looked at the coding and here are some ideas reg. aviation (but not only). Indeed, like many I tend to struggle with the feeling provided by flying in BF²/FH² why ? 1> the map size First since some of you mentionned IL2 (one can also mention Lock-On), please realize that we are playing in a totally different league here. IL2 (or LO) maps are minimum 100km² up to 10000km². In reality (and in IL2) flight from airfield to target took several minutes (hours). Target where generally visible from approx 10 to 15 km distance. The attack cone to target had generally a 5km radius, from altitude up to 5000m. At 500km/h this means an approch to target of approx. 20 seconds, enough to identify, aim, shoot. AA were leathal but would be really efficient only in the last 1500m. R-R combat would start with an identification of ennemy formation at 2-4 km distance. 2> In BF² FH² In FH² maps are generally 4km² (to max. 16km² if I'm not mistaken). If planes are modded based on real data with a willingness of realism, flying at 500km/h, they will cross a map in 13 seconds. Impossible for instance to have a squadron formation with a combat spacing of 500m If AA efficiency are also designed based on real data, they can basically shoot any plane on any position in the map (same valid for tanks actually who use to shoot at range exeeding 1km) So the only solution to try to give some sort of equilibrium, is to play on visibility (i.e. fog distance). Typically 600-800m on FH² maps. Unfortunatly for the aviator this represent a 5 second visibility ... impossible to plan a decent R-R or R-Ground attack. 3> My conclusions on this facts : - Weapon with realistic distance efficiency and dispersion means that the first player that sees his ennemy (and shoot properly) will win the duel. - If we increase visibility (fog dist.) AA become too efficient and plane cannot make surprise attack - If we decrease visibility, planes have a mear 2-3 seconds visibility. Not enough to identify a target, adjust the attack run and shoot. - Changing the FOV a per your suggestion, will improve peripheral visibility, but will get you shot down by an AA you could even not see. (I've tested it on my FH²-mini_trainmod). So what can be done : Given the map size limitation, aviation behavior can only be reproduced by changing aviation scale, that is by slowing down planes by a factor 5 to 10 !!! But if you do only this ... you get the problem of the FH² Stuka, you get shot by AA like a sitting duck. So AA range need also to be reduced in the same proportion, with an increased dispertion. Is it just the planes ? Unfortunatly this facts are also valid for tanks, or even inf. As long as speed, weapon range are coded based on real data you get the problem of : U see 1st = U win U spend your time playing , shooting at object as big as a couple of pixels. In summary : You cannot realistically mod a war with 64 players on a 4km² map. Should you adapt range, dispertion, speed ... then you could compensate partially for the above phenomenon by artificially enlarging the maps ... pretty tough decision, for guys who did a fantastic job in collecting a immense documentation to make the mod as precise as possible. (Not to mention those that will inevitably complain that they have to run or fly for 2mn before being able to fire a shot :uhm: Miaou ;)
:gpost: well thought and plainly stated. will be interesting to read pilots interested in making the game "better" replies.
not so interesting, the pilot whiners... who want more kills
skorpios;4191626:gpost: well thought and plainly stated. will be interesting to read pilots interested in making the game "better" replies. not so interesting, the pilot whiners... who want more kills
I agree.. And the whole wanting more kills thing. I want pilots to have a bigger impact, which involves more kills.