Hi,
Would it be very hard to add a head shaking system? I'm so get used to see it in other sim that for me it breaks a lot the immersion while flying, specially during taking off or landing. Everything is too static. 
Camera Shaking Feature
-
- Official Post
It's intended to be static due to VR. If your head automatically shook in VR everyone would have motion sickness.
-
if you are bound to VR, you lose all the PC-customers.
Effects are essential for further devlopments.
-
What?
There are still peple flying flat screens??
Just kidding:)
-
- Official Post
Shaking camera is the wrong way to go in my opinion and I've spoken with Marc about this in the past and he agrees: the Camera doesn't shake in the real world ergo it shouldn't shake in Aerofly. The aircraft shakes around the camera with the camera being the more inert object. That means, sure we may have a shaking aircraft in the future but the camera will probably remain physically accurate which would benefit the VR users and would also look better.
How does that make a difference?
If you look out side and your aircraft is shaking then the instruments move up and down but the scenery outside doesn't move. If you ask for shaking camera then the entire scene is moving, as if you were to shake your head instead to fake turbulence, that just not realistic.
So no to shaking camera but yes to more vivid movement of the aircraft in turbulence, due to a hard landing, stall buffeting, ground roughness, etc!
-
GameAddict may have chosen an inaccurate term for what he is looking for.
if i am right, his request was the simulation of uneven runway conditions and the rising stream that hits the cabin on the take off run,
whatever name you want to give the scripts that do these jobs.
current flight models in aerofly are not reflecting such physical interactions, that makes it a bit unrealistic. I think we all agree.
x-plane has some wonderful scripts i think. worth a look.
-
Shaking camera is the wrong way to go in my opinion and I've spoken with Marc about this in the past and he agrees: the Camera doesn't shake in the real world ergo it shouldn't shake in Aerofly. The aircraft shakes around the camera with the camera being the more inert object. That means, sure we may have a shaking aircraft in the future but the camera will probably remain physically accurate which would benefit the VR users and would also look better.
How does that make a difference?
If you look out side and your aircraft is shaking then the instruments move up and down but the scenery outside doesn't move. If you ask for shaking camera then the entire scene is moving, as if you were to shake your head instead to fake turbulence, that just not realistic.
So no to shaking camera but yes to more vivid movement of the aircraft in turbulence, due to a hard landing, stall buffeting, ground roughness, etc!
I like your thinking,
it might add some immersion into VR if it's done as you described it. On the other hand you will be holding a physical yoke or stick which will not follow this motion as your brain would expect in VR.
-
I have to agree that i would like some form of shaking when the aircraft is on take off roll or landing but it has to be the Aircraft that shakes
& not the camera, the instruments would shake too,how complicated this would be to achieve i don't know but it would certainly improve
the immersion as i do not use VR
-
Yes, there are a lot of pilots flying with monitors, also in the future. Me too. Don't make the mistake to supports VR only.
Always both, aircraft and body, is moving. Therefore it is correct to move the camera too, regarding of the physics.
On the other hand moving the picture too much, also if the physics correct, can driving the pilots sickness. So this feature is to handle carefully.
I know this feature from EZDoc. It's really nice, but in my opinion it's not a major feature. I missing a smart view control in FS2 like EZDoc and hope IPACS will add it any when.
-
Sorry but in real life nothing really shake. System like EZDOK are fun but very unrealistic.
-
How does that make a difference?
If you look out side and your aircraft is shaking then the instruments move up and down but the scenery outside doesn't move. If you ask for shaking camera then the entire scene is moving, as if you were to shake your head instead to fake turbulence, that just not realistic.
Not so bad actually. Since your instruments or the glare shield are just a few centimeters from your nose, while the landscape you're looking at is (hopefully) nautical miles away, thus shaking movements of the camera is imperceptible on the outside and the result feels very realistic indeed.
Moreover you're not quite right saying only the aircraft moves, not the camera.
Of course, turbulences directly affect the airframe, not the pilot. So the airframe moves in the first place, while the pilot's body tends to keep on its trajectory.
But the pilot is shaken by the airframe, I have enough difficulties to write on my kneeboard or set instruments on the panel when flying in turbulences to tell you I'm actually being shaken - and thus the "camera" as well - not just the aircraft around me. Try flying a light aircraft in turbulences with a glass of water in the hand. If only the aircraft is shaken, you won't spill any drop
In that sense , shaking the airframe only is not less wrong than shaking the camera only, while shaking the camera like EZDOK might seem quite easier to achieve than shaking the whole airframe... at least currently the Aerofly FS2 currently simply yaw softly in turbulences.
But of course, if you can achieve a better turbulences effect on airframe in AFS2, it would be great.
Best regards
Antoine
-
Sorry but in real life nothing really shake. System like EZDOK are fun but very unrealistic.
ever flown?
shake a lot man.
-
ever flown?
shake a lot man.
4000 + flight hours, yes the plane may shake but your body act like a suspension
-
4000 + flight hours, yes the plane may shake but your body act like a suspension
I had far fewer hours than that, but I never really noticed any shaking in my visual perceptions. Now, as the next post said, you do get lots of bumps. I wonder if camera shaking is the best or only way to simulate that? I have no idea.
-
- Official Post
You can't actually fake rotational motion with the camera. You may be able to add up and down, left/right and forwards/backwards translation and fake turbulence by moving the camera... That in theory works well because the scenery outside actually does't move that much on the screen, so that is possible to fake, yes. But how do you fake one wing going up and the other going down? You'd have to rotate the camera but then the scenery rotates with the camera and that is where things get unrealistic.
So the best option is to simulate the pilot's head and its inertia and then add the vibrations and buffeting and turbulence effects to the airframe. Then, naturally, you get the best results. For VR users we may have to add an option to freeze the camera in relation to the aircraft, so that users don't get motion sickness. Or maybe leave it as an option for those that want the full treatment like in the real world
-
The train moves, not the station.
Things shake, not the view.
So what is the discussion about?
-
- Official Post
The question was if we can't just fake the camera movement because it may be easier to implement.
-
- Official Post
I'm assuming that this thread was for the suggestion of adding more shaking motion when flying. The fact here is that in VR people would get motion sickness if there was more shaking than what exists already. Usually items such as this is added by a 3rd party developer so that it's actually a choice that users can have rather than something that is added that everyone is forced to endure.
What exists currently is rather realistic in my opinion. Maybe someone will eventually add something like this down the road for users that want more shaking motion.
Currently for development sake, there is a long list of items that would need to be added to Aerofly prior to something like this being added even as an option in settings for users to turn this on or off.
