LoBiSoMeM

Years with arcade Desert Combat and BF2... If your can align a target with these "sensible" helis and network lag, with BS and improved controls are really easy. I engage FD, compensate launch delay and fire... as people said! Just practice! And attack using "blind spots" of dangerous targets, of course!

I saw the movies and tracks and will begin to blame the Flight Dynamic Engine too! Why can't I do those cool perfect, coordinated and leveled maneuvers? Ops... maybe I need to practice more... or use less the FD in crazy and stupid maneuvers! LOL!

Me too. But my aerobatic skills are really crap! To do that good, need more discipline and training... I only do simple split-s and loopings... Talking about input devices, I use the pedals of an old steering wheel... works OK. A cheap solution. In really low, fast and direction/speed changing flight, the use of the "stick center and go" trim will be an easy way to kill yourself, I think... The loose springs joy I use is good in this kind of situation: less stress on my arm and more precise control! I saw real pilots talking about the trim feature in real heli, but in the sim, with a non-FF joy, things are different. We need to adjust to our "reallity"! Maybe OldFlyer2 is using too much trim...

Ok... I made a track now of a short fun flight boring some brave truck driver and a kind of easy "slalom" over a city. With the control input window on. Just engaged FD, no trim usage at all, no gun slew, no dust protection turned on :thumbup: just "dirty" flying with my cheap, descalibrated and old joy with tiny side throtlle slider as collective and my cheap FreeTrack HT system... As said Cindy Lauper, it's good enough for me! :pilotfly: http://www.easy-share.com/1906986976/FDFlightTest.trk I felt the Ka-50 very "user friendly" with the inputs! Something strange are happening in your system or with your flying style, OldFyer2! I'm flying OK without touch the trim... With trim usage and AP engaged, hands free 90% of the time!

Today, low level flight in Rio (my hometown) is only possible in some areas with one of these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EI7WuvQYcI&feature=related Really sad... :huh:

Flight Dynamic Engine... Well, sometimes I just takeoff with FD engaged and begin really low level flight over a major city (low level = below 5m...), just entering agressive hovers, side and backward flight, pushing civil cars with the Ka-50 belly, etc... a lot of stupid things just for fun! I'm using an old Thrustmaster joystick with a tinny throttle slider... and with "home-made" loose springs... a personal touch I like to cheap joy and helli sims... When I think in complaint about the physics in the game, I just scratch the belly of the Ka-50 on the ground or another object, or remember ground effect and the inertia when doing a hard break... When I think about complaint about the input, I remember how I can - with my cheap and "modded" joy - circle one single infantry unit and kill it with precise shooting, or enter in a hover behind a building easy and fast... Any complaint about these features in DCS:BS must be motivated - as said - by a input hardware problem or lack of training. And I have one RC coaxial heli! LOL!

Unfortunally, I undestand this way... and the lack of direct answers lead to beliave in some kind of exclusivity contract, suport removal, sales share, etc. Still waiting some direct answer as an ED customer, but I think the non-TrackIR-combo customer opinion doesn't matter. Why give suport to a "minority"? Only because we bought DCS titles? DCS:BS is only 39,99 USD...

And....?

I bought the DCS:BS English Version (online) and tell to all my friends about the good work done. Also post a lot in diverse online foruns. I'll buy ALL rotary-wing DCS modules, if they have wide input hardware suport.

I can undestand... :thumbup: I'll wait the day when the major HT company will allow me to use the solution I want to use for 6DOF HT in my favorite sim. Or the day when the software companies will go against this. But, as an ED consumer, not NP, I think this kind of contract MUST be explicit. I'm not a fanboy. I like the quality of TrackIR hardware. But I'm also have a complaint to a company, ED, for FreeTrack Interface suport or others 6DOF HT solutions. If exists an impeditive contract between ED and other company about this subject, as a consumer, I will apreciate if it's clarified when I buy the game. All the boring discussion about marketing policies is not for me. I just want the true and respect of a company I respect. But, by now, this is the best and honest answer I ever read by a software company with an "enhanced" title by now, without any "reverse engineering" crap! :) Thanks. Will wait and will like to be fully informed. I want to discuss the technical aspect, but what the point if exist an exclusivity contract between ED and other company for 6DOF HT? In this case, I just want know to not waste my time. And as a customer, I have this right. Or not?

Well, if it's true, I think ED must inform we customers about this. I know a lot of peole who uses FreeTrack as head tracking device/software solution and bought DCS:BS. If don't exist a legal or contract issue, I really will apreciate one standing about this subject by ED. I bought ED software, not NP software or hardware. I'll like to see some discussion about other options of head tracking... NP hardware and interface is not the only option available. And head tracking technology isn't NP monopoly. Maybe one interface, but never the technology. This isn't a "forbidden" subject. It's a necessary discussion about our freedom to use our hardware resources. If I can provide 6DOF HT data, with free software and free interface, why a software like DCS:BS can't use this or why we can't discuss this subject? I only want some coherent answers... I 'll really apreciate other HT solutions support! I saw a lot of "pure TrackIR topics" with no problems or warnings.

I'm talking to ED with all the respect possible. Why are you misleading the thread? I start with a simple question: will I be able to use freetrack in the next patch? Will I need to install a fix, hack, or ED will use the FreeTrack open source interface too? I don't like NP. I have the right to do this and say this. Nothing to do with ED, by now. But I will edit my initial post... a little bit tired of this kind of niilistic discussion... Don't mislead the topic, please. I don't want to discuss NP products, NP API, etc. I want to know if ED can implement the use os FreeTrack Open source Inteface in the next patch, the SDK are available, etc. Simple. It's a legit suggestion. Why only one product support? We can have more options, will be good and not a big amount of work to do!

Good point! :thumbup: My contribution: FreeTrack software: http://www.free-track.net/english/freetrack/telechargement.php SDK: In the software itself. A clear folder with all C, Delphi, etc... ED just need to use the FreeTrack Interface to have FreeTrack support. No real technical problems to do this. If have TIR support, FreeTrack Inteface use are simple. ED uses the 3D data stream by NP API. Can use the 3D data strem by FreeTrack open source interface too. Simple? I don't know... :pilotfly:

My "hate" reason... I'm a little bit tired to have the hardware and software necessary to generate the head tracking data and are IMPOSED to use one monopoly company "solution" to have the same features in a game, sim, etc. That's why I hate the cited company. My "hate" are not the subject now of the topic. Please, don't mislead the discussion... That's not the question, let's move on... But what I really, but really hate, is the simple and not discussed fact: FreeTrack HAVE an avalable SDK, and HAVE the available raw data to any company use. For free, no legal issues. This subject never is discussed with the proper manner... It's 2009, we all have potent hardware and potential solutions for a - now - simple technology: IR head tracking. Why we can't buy a $10 dollars 3 point clip and use a simples software? I have a multicore cpu, no more need to "no CPU usage" talking... We dont need to use any paid head tracking API to do this. We can use one, no problem, but we don't NEED. Why people can't discuss this? And yes, I have to install a "fix", and you know what "fix" it is. I'll like if ED can use the FreeTrack open-source interface and data. I'll like if this feature are included as a real FIX in the next patch. I'm making a suggestion to ED, to use the AVAILABLE FreeTrack SDK and Interface too. Nothing "underlying" in my posts. Read them all. I'll not enter another "close the topic" discussion leaded by some head tracking devices customers, thanks!

I'm not begginin a discussion about TrackIR prices. I'm not paying for any product like this. I like to use my webcam to generate the video stream for head tracking. I'm using a free software, open-source, one IR gadget I made, and one Microsoft webcam. This free software, open-source, can be used to generate a lot of output data formats. This output is availabe for any software company to use. As I said, the calculation of this data are made by know and free available math (http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/26154/ftp:zSzzSzpublications.ai.mit.eduzSzai-publicationszSzpdfzSzAIM-1378.pdf/alter92pose.pdf). I really don't need more framerates. 30 FPS are OK for DCS:BS head tracking. If I need more, I can buy one dedicated IR camera, like Wiimote, or another product. That's not the point. Why I can use OpenOffice to edit my texts, using all the export formats, but have so much "issues" using Free Track? I like my low 30FPS webcam... My deal is with Eagle Dynamics, not other company. I have a legit consumer question... I'll like to use my webcam and an open source software to generate my head tracking data. ED software can use the raw data outputed by this software? I can see one "FreeTrack Interface" and a lot of raw data below this ugly skull... I'm talking about ED software and my hardware. And I'm talking now about open source interface, not a company one... We can discuss this? I can't see any legal problem. I think it's an ED customer legit point of concern. If not, I will like, as consumer, to read clearly in one document after buying other DCS series title: "This is an "Enhanced" game, and you will never be able to use your cheap head tracking solution, or even discuss the subject!" Can we talk about other IR head tracking solutions? :thumbup:

A webcam can provide a good way to track IR leds and the CPU can use the image to stream data to 6DOF view control. No big deal about the calcutation of 3 points in space image. I never understand why don't exist a lot of cheap head tracking options... Wiimote uses IR leds and tracking... what's the big deal about IR tracking hardware and PC games? We can't discuss the cheaper options? Never undestand all the "mist" over this subject... Free Track is open-source. Can one company (like ED) use the software (or other) without the patented output? The calculation for head tracking is based in math, not patented yeat... Will we someday have the option of this kind of software and regular hardware for head tracking?

Or maybe ED can use the Free Track SDK and other API supported solutions for 6DOF.

Will we need to install another "fix"? Will we have support for FreTrack open-source Interface?

I really don't need to "walk out" of my helicopter during the play... Just like to blow up infantry and tanks controlled by human players, with human "I"... :thumbup:

ArmA II = ArmA engine = OFP "improved" engine... OFP2 = EGO engine... Crytek, Codemasters and DICE engines are the benchmark today for FPS + vehicles. Bohemia uses a dated engine, with a lot of limitations and unsolved bugs.

About "eye-candy" and "simulation": The Ka-50 is a "visual" AH. Eye-candy is a major part of the simulation and one of the strong points in DCS:BS.

Perfect. When I think "DCS Modules" I think this way... It's possible. If not with complex infantry combat, a high quality FPS, with ground units combat: tanks, APCs, etc. In one module, all the CPU with flight model, etc. And the other module only receive the data over the internet. The graphic engine by yourself can be different... Ground units module = better terrain, no need to 500km/h speeds and complex flight dynamics... But this is a new vision. I don't think one company alone can do this work today: high fidelity fight sim with high quality FPS AND high quality tank battle sim... But with cooperation, sharing one concept and split in different potencial markets, with focus on MP, only the sky is the limit... The technology is avaible now. We have ArmAII, BF2, etc... I have a dream... :)

I'll love some work over the engine, fix of some know issues, better MP stability and netcode... but if I was only able to look at the Ka-50 model of DCS:BS, his cockpit, and just fly around a bit, I'll be a happy pearson... The work in 3dmodels, fly models, weapons, etc are amazing :pilotfly: Years waiting for a heli sim like this. All the whining about the patch is motivated by high expectations, not MAJOR issues needed to be fixed, I beliave. But I'm a fan of "little patches" or "beta paches"... Is it not an option? I can live with broken tutorials... :music_whistling:

Well, we PAY for it. And this is the same old LockOn bug... ED receive the privilege to have our money too... we are customers... :pilotfly: Best flight sim ever, I love it... but with some old flaws in the old engine. Need time to development. A lot of "CPU usage" isn't "too much complex calculations", but a dated engine, some graphics issues too. A great engine, but need work. I beliave isn't offensive point this. It's the reallity. Nothing is perfect.

It's a bug and CAN be fixed. Engine limitations CAN be fixed... and MUST be fixed... We pay for a software without "unfixable bugs"... or am I wrong? The DCS Series pretend to be a new brand, an evolution of LockOn series. But... the same "unfixable bug"? The same engine? I understand the marketing strategy of release new flyable aircrafts and the time needed for it... but some development in engine flaws will be good too...