Dynamic Head movements in FSX (for Falcon X)

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

While working on the F16 we run into the exaggerated head movements of the VC in FSX. For example if you extend the speedbrakes on the Falcon your head hits the glareshield now. Not really realictic.

I would like to get some feedback on what people feel would be more realistic, reduce ALL movements, reduce only some of the movements (and if so what movements)? For sure the front to back movements need to be reduced.

[koen3950 0]

I agree about the front/back movements, they are clearly too much for a fighter jet.

About the other movements, I like the "head-behaviour" in the acceleration F/A18. Except maybe the left/right movement of the head (but I suppose this is also influenced by how tight you are strapped in ...)

[pujx 0]

While working on the F16 we run into the exaggerated head movements of the VC in FSX. For example if you extend the speedbrakes on the Falcon your head hits the glareshield now. Not really realictic.

Perhaps the pilot has not fasten his seatbelt

It´s Sure that You are going to "teach him"

[Robert S 75]

I like the head movements, especially when using the TrackIR...so, my vote is to try and make them work, rather than removing them altogether...

[iRay 1]

While working on the F16 we run into the exaggerated head movements of the VC in FSX. For example if you extend the speedbrakes on the Falcon your head hits the glareshield now. Not really realictic.

I would like to get some feedback on what people feel would be more realistic, reduce ALL movements, reduce only some of the movements (and if so what movements)? For sure the front to back movements need to be reduced.

Well, the thing is that indeed you feel it when the airbrakes are getting used...... but not very much, so if its just a little bit there no probs, excually when your taxiing and hit the wheel brakes too hard you deffinately get a nosebleed because your hittin' the ICP/HUD, ofcourse when your not strapped up well in the seat that is.

thw way i seen the rest of the movements is not that bad, but i geuss i havent seen it all on fs weekend!

Still like to sign up for some beta testing!

grtz

[Cody Bergland 4]

The movement of a cinched down harness should only give movement of a couple of inches at most. If you could reduce it to say perhaps 10-30% of what it is now, it would probably be best.

[EDOT-TH 0]

Yep, a reduction of the forward and backward movement should do. Though I am not sure whether it is a totaly different approach to head movement: I love the way how Realair does it in there products (so far I do not own a FSX product by them (e.g. SF260) only have them for FS9 up to now. But I think this is how "head" movement should be and it gives a nice feeling even w/o TraickIR (and of course an even more nicer with *g*).

[iRay 1]

I'd leave it up to the user, as this is very easy to change in the fsx.cfg file.

Regards

Bernt Stolle Capt 767

I also agree on that!!

grtz

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I agree about the front/back movements, they are clearly too much for a fighter jet.

About the other movements, I like the "head-behaviour" in the acceleration F/A18. Except maybe the left/right movement of the head (but I suppose this is also influenced by how tight you are strapped in ...)

yes, but that's default as it does not change the FSX.cfg (as far as I know). I find the F-18 to be too slow to react to throttle, speedbrakes and stick, perhaps that the difference?

[Stefan Hoffmann 4160]

Hello gentlemen,

randomly saw your thread and perhaps I can add something useful.

When I remember my flying adventures I strapped my body very strong

to the seat. So the torso was almost fixed. My only head movement

forward and back could be around 30 Centimeters. This was in civil aircraft.

When you go up to fight in the skies maneuvering is even stressier. And as I know pilots came back with blue areas on their skin, where the seatbelt was.

So, its logic, there is only movement in legs, arms and head with neck.

Our case was especially the head-neck realtionship. And when you want to get 'realisitc' results make and experiment: Put a guy against a wall. Fix his shoulders with the hands of two other guys, left and right, were the seatbelt is normally sitting. Tell him, that he should push his neck and head forward as strong as he can.

This is like backstep engineering. You will see, that the head movement is very short. He will never meet a glareshield in real world.

I calculate with around 30 centimeters if he is looking straight forward.

Remember that combat pilot seats strap the pilot very narrow to the seat. In optimum they should become almost one, because if there is any movement of the body inside the belt, high g maneuviering gets a very painful event.

So much do the PITCH axis of the head.

BANKING can be up to 30 degrees I guess (no movement , only rotation) , and at a certain point the pilots helmet will hit the shoulders of the uniform. So there will in be ended surely. And the pilot prepares for the turn. First he will look into the direction he will guide the fighter and with this action something of the force of the sideward acceleration is taken.

So the bank (we fly a turn at constant speed) should be shorter timed, but calmer in force.

The Pitch, when using the airbrakes, takes much more time. Perhaps five times or AND more depending on speed difference and strength of deceleration compared to that of the banking. And what is also important, when you AIR-brake an aircraft, is, that the deceleration force is degrading with time, because the air drag braking force lowers with the lowering airspeed.

So we have a hard kick in when opening the airbrakes, and a smooth recovering of the pilots head at the degrading airspeed.

I dont know how this looks in your special case. I final consideration can surely only be done with a direct look at the problem. What the lines show, is the proportions of what the movements, no better ROTATIONS, should be timed about in strength and time.

I hope this can help you in any way.

[Mithrin 0]

Personally I like the movement so I would be happy to see at least a little of it back on the Falcon.

[skydvdan 2]

While working on the F16 we run into the exaggerated head movements of the VC in FSX. For example if you extend the speedbrakes on the Falcon your head hits the glareshield now. Not really realictic.

I would like to get some feedback on what people feel would be more realistic, reduce ALL movements, reduce only some of the movements (and if so what movements)? For sure the front to back movements need to be reduced.

I would say reduce at the very least the forward/back. As was stated already, when your body is strapped in (and you strap in really tight) you should get minimal head movement when performing manuvers. :wink:

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I also agree on that!!

grtz

Gentlemen, there is one thing you always got to keep in mind. Our average customer will NEVER ever change a cfg file and thank god for that. It would create havoc on our support if they would. The kind of customer that would, the kind you see in these forums are at best 5% of our total customer base.

In other words, we can not create a product that is aimed at you guys, but at a much larger group of customers. People who will not change a cfg.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hello gentlemen,

randomly saw your thread and perhaps I can add something useful.

Good post, BUT...

How far the head actually moves in the F16 is not so important actually. In this kind of simulation you try to make the product so the customers feels it is correct (certainly if it is a parameter that expert users can change we do not have to consider them a lot in this aspect).

There are a few ways we can show the huge amounts of G force a Falcon can create. We will most likely make a gauge that let you hear the groans of the airframe under high stress, perhaps even simulate the straining of the pilot. Another way is to move the viewpoint, in fact it is by far the most effective way. And I am pretty sure that a 'realistic' restricted viewpoint will not provoke the right feel in the average user.

So we got to find a point in between, something that is realistic, yet give the right effect. Exactly what MS tried to do. And they done it pretty well for airliners and GA aircraft. Just not for agile fighters like the falcon.

Let me give you another example. I learned recently that in most occasions the pilot of a Falcon hardly hears the engine. The wind noise is far louder. Yet our average customer has heard F16's fly over or if he is lucky heard them starting. It's incredibly loud. He will never accept that the pilot who sits on top of that massive sound hardly hears it. For the same reason you will hear the gear coming up in many aircraft, even if the gear are so far away the pilot would never hear it. The customers expects to hear it.

[Mithrin 0]

Which again shows that this is a simulation and far from the real thing. It's all about imagination! Fine by my that.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Which again shows that this is a simulation and far from the real thing. It's all about imagination! Fine by my that.

Not so long ago we used to see a huge gray polygon with the some sort of a tower in the center. And for us that was high def Paris. It worked because our minds told us it was Paris.

[Josquin 4]

It definitely needs to at least reduce the forward/back movement as it happened that the POV went behind the headrest during acceleration, i don't remember which aircraft did that, but it's not a fun thing when it happens

[iRay 1]

I still think that everybody has to change it for themselves, thats also something with FS you can add things in it yourselfe..........luckely!

Maybe when its out we can have a site were everybody could place an addon wich he made himselfe for the plane.......just an idea!

[Polar 0]

A small section in the manual that ( uses a disclaimer ? ) and describes how to enable this "advanced" feature by editing the config, and includes what Aerosoft's reccomended setting is, would be my vote.

If not that, then how about including it as an install option, or a small configurator? Something that could toggle the value between what Aerosoft deems is appropriate for the F-16, and the default. A custom field could be included, to enable customers to find their own balanced setting.