Realistic Heads Up Displays

Johnyy · Post by **Johnyy** » 2008-04-06 12:14

Hey,

wouldn´t it be cooler and more realistic if the sights in an aircraft or helicopter would fit into the HU-Display?
currently the optics are bigger than the display and it looks unrealistic.

markonymous · Post by **markonymous** » 2008-04-06 12:15

this has been bugging me to. dont know if HUDs might be hardcoded though.

BTW the f-18 has a very nice look inside the airplane with the HUD and sights and so on i think you should make more interiors like that.

Swe_Olsson · Post by **Swe_Olsson** » 2008-04-06 12:18

its better to focus putting the reality in the gameplay rather than minor things such as vehicle HUDs that works perfectly fine

Mora · Post by **Mora** » 2008-04-06 12:27

But its a reality game so it has to "look" realistic too. Game play is one but visualization is also important.

Swe_Olsson · Post by **Swe_Olsson** » 2008-04-06 12:45

not as important personal opinion of course. If you want it to be realistic, why dont you trynmakeityourself

Mora · Post by **Mora** » 2008-04-06 12:49

I am not such a artist.

markonymous · Post by **markonymous** » 2008-04-06 14:13

Swe_Olsson wrote:not as important personal opinion of course. If you want it to be realistic, why dont you trynmakeityourself

For some reason all the DEVs PUBs testers etc etc hate aircraft they just make them less and less useful and dont give a **** about them, and when someone wants something added to them "make it yourself" is the answer.

zangoo · Post by **zangoo** » 2008-04-06 14:39

its cus cas felt that it was bad having the pilots head kissing the glass, so he moved the camera back, he didnt resize the hud so it doesnt fit now.

markonymous · Post by **markonymous** » 2008-04-06 14:51

any plans fixing it?

@jonny: i dont know what to say(actually i do but i don't want to be banned)

markonymous · Post by **markonymous** » 2008-04-06 15:26

someone *cough* Jonny *cough* made a game mode that has been implemented and has received no credit afaik. So even if you make it yourself and they even implement it its not sure you get any credit. oh and lets not forgett the amazing ballistics that for some unknown idiotic reason wont be accepted either.

Post by **Masaq** » 2008-04-06 18:04

What are you looking for, Marko? A banner on the main page of the site listing every improvement in-game and who thought of including it, who coded it, who textured it, who uvwrapped it, who tested it...? When you say "game mode" I assume you're talking about the suggestion to include 16p layers on maps like Kashan with only light vehicles and transport aircraft? Or something else?

As for ballistics; until there's a few working examples shown to the team, how on earth do you ever expect them to state whether or not they'll be included?

Finally, as for planes - is it suprising that jet don't get much attention from the team when so few maps include them due to the size of the maps? PR refused to follow EA's ridiculous plan of including jets on maps so small they have to continually turn to stay in-bounds, which is a Good Thing.

markonymous · Post by **markonymous** » 2008-04-06 18:20

EEF tested the balistics actually...(quite a while ago AFAIK) So did we with the light combat mode. I was thinking somewhere around the lines of appreciating the job jonny did. Also a list of creators and what they did is not a bad idea.

Post by **Masaq** » 2008-04-06 19:07

Why not submit the files to the team and get the mod's actual testers to test them? Just a thought.

As for light vehicle mode - what's it matter? And actually isn't using a 16p layer actually more sensible - allowing servers to include a variety of maps using a variety of asset loadouts on the same server configuration without having to switch between Vehicle Only on/off configs?

Post by **Mosquill** » 2008-04-06 19:33

Realistic huds - is one of many things I'm currently working on.

And when a Dev says something like 'why don't you do it yourself' it doesnt necessary means that:

a)it will get implemented even if you'll do it;

b)it will fit PR's gameplay even after you'll do it;

c)hours/days of the time you'll spent on that feature won't be just a waste of time, because that feature isn't already done and will be in next release anyway;

d)Devs won't ignore your project even after it's all done.

Oh and yes the ballistics are almost done, but I have some doubts about it beign included in the next release. Did the ballistics thread had a single reply from any Dev? Really, I'm curious.

CAS_117 · Post by **CAS_117** » 2008-04-06 21:46

markonymous wrote:For some reason all the DEVs PUBs testers etc etc hate aircraft they just make them less and less useful and dont give a **** about them, and when someone wants something added to them "make it yourself" is the answer.

*sigh.

Post by **Masaq** » 2008-04-06 23:47

Mosquill wrote:Oh and yes the ballistics are almost done, but I have some doubts about it beign included in the next release. Did the ballistics thread had a single reply from any Dev? Really, I'm curious.

As I've said before; if you want the Devs to comment on your work then the best way to get that comment is probably (IMO) to show them it, ask their opinions on it and solicit their feedback to ensure that the ballistics you're modeling match their expectations of gameplay.