4 Likes
Understandably. Is there some way to increase sensitivity of the head tracking? If not, then you’ll have to stretch and train your shoulder and neck muscles. 
2 Likes
VR is always 1:1 tracking I think, as it might feel really weird otherwise. As keeping eyes on target is so important, you pretty much have to warm up first (I’ve got beyond the age of not having to do stretches 
). The other worse VR thing (apart from putting my neck out) was picking up a cup in Job Simulator, pretending to take a sip and punching myself in the face/headset.
3 Likes
It’s a good thing we don’t have to deal with actual G forces. Most of us would end up in hospital 
.
3 Likes
If you want the set of neck exercises that we are told to do (that most don’t until we hurt ourselves) I can send it to you lol.
Also ya it sucks, one of our guys slipped a disk doing pullups last year and hes been DNIF (duties not including flying) ever since. According to the PT’s hes working with probably 70% of fighter aircrew in particular will have the same injury, they just either haven’t reported it, or don’t know. Only thing you can do is do the exercises and work on strengthening your neck and back muscles, which is not something most people do in their day to day workouts.
6 Likes
The Museum Relic campaign featured a mission that had a nice failure that added a lot to the mission. So yes, failures when woven into the story you are trying to tell can be pretty nice.
In a random mission, I would probably agree that it might not be ideal. On a random mission in a dynamic campaign, I might not mind it depending on how far I flew only to have my bombs not come off as I hit the pickle button. I mean, I have that happen enough due to my OWN incompetence. (Surely this second pass won’t end in disas…)
1 Like
So, when I go to work, I have to deal with an occasional failure (mostly just small nuisance items). Major items rarely break these days thankfully. Often we can MEL the item and still fly, sometimes not.
When I go to training every 6 months, I know that something major is going to break - that’s what I am there for.
When I am at play, on a sim like DCS, personally I don’t want random failures. Until recently I didn’t even want to bother with the start up procedures, but I have to admit I kind of like learning that aspect for each module now.
Besides, when I fly into virtual combat I am probably going to have to nurse home the battle damaged wreck I am flying, so random failures really are not necessary for me .
3 Likes
To be honest I can see the thrill of an unexpected issue- but also the annoyance of doing everytihng alright and having to scrap a perfectly executed mission…
Well maybe the point is, we should have harsher problems by mis-using our virtual birds…
I mean- the way mos tof the guys rough-handle engines is enough to make me cry, not to mention electrical systems and Electronic hardware.
So, would that work?
3 Likes
Then i reach over, give them a slap to wake them up…
Its all about crew resource management.
3 Likes
I remember having to gently use the engines in the Me262 in the old Il-2 VERY well, or you’d wind up a short-lived firework. It did instill discipline, although IMO it seemed to have gone too far into babying it.
Rise of Flight and other WWI sims have generally been very good about punishing you for overstressing an airframe or egnine, but admittedly WWII and later eras tend to be a bit too forgiving.
The lack of in-mission saves for flight sims is another factor. If I could save at the one hour point in a two-hour mission, I might not mind a failure because I could reload and try again if I got killed. Without that, to work my way to a target area only to have a critical failure that was not avoidable take me out and ending the campaign seems like the ultimate loss of 2 hours.
Likewise few racing sims have failures that are not from contact damage or engine abuse. Who wants to fight for a pole position only to have a cylinder blow out on lap 1 of the race and get a miserable DNF that wasn’t their fault?
In real life, you can do everything right but still be tripped up by random events. In an entertainment product, you tend to want a perfect outcome if you manage to do everything perfectly, expecting failure only from a personal mistake.
1 Like
IMO, frustration does not need to be simulated.
Got enough of this in real life
8 Likes
Imagine the A-10C BITE test spitting out a MEL item that cannot be replaced or worked around, such a thing would fit in well with the campaign @BeachAV8R is currently playing!
2 Likes
IRL when a sortie has to happen that’s why you have spares ready, every line that launches probly has two jets that are ready to go in case they break. This and many problems that occur can usually be attempted to be fixed in the chocks with the engine running, going as far as swapping out LRUs.
2 Likes
Had a good think about random failures in sims. Would it raise my enjoyment level?
The solid answer to that is yes AND no.
You may say, “well Mr Headbox, thats a pants reply”. But there is a reason for that.
For me it depends on the sim. I will cut it short as i have to scoot to work, but here is why.
In a civil sim, years of fsx for me. I got bored. You could mistreat any plane as much as you like and suffered no consequences. Engines kept thumping, fuel kept pumping systems kept…well err… systeming.
That was until i discovered A2A and their Accusim.
Then there comes combat simulators, my main meat at the table for the moment.
So the answer is yes, I needed system failures in my sims. But this came with a caveat.
In a civil sim, i want wear and tear and mistreated frames to carry its foibles in perpetuity. Mistreat the engines and over time they start misbehaving. E.g. try doing a round the world trip in the wonderful A2A and Accusimed Strattocruiser and i will be surprised if you hadn’t lost multiple engines or had to overhaul several times. That to me is enjoyment, there is a reason for flying well, for looking after your airframe.
In a milsim, well we will be shot. And that will involve failures. So here, i want my airframe at top notch, zero defects, before flight. This because, its mostly going to be swiss cheese (at best) coming home.
So yeah, failures for me are an integral part f any sim. But just how they are employed is the most important part for me.
(edit, had to finish it off after work)
6 Likes
I don’t like random aircraft failures in sims, but I do like random weapon failures. Strike Fighters had them and it was pretty fun. Every time you launched a Sparrow, there was this tension whether the missile would guide or drop dead. It probably didn’t hurt though that the Phantom carried sufficient missiles to try again.
Why you do ALWAYS express exactly what I want to, but OH! so MUCH better?
Oh, wait- you are a native english speaker… Well, carry on…
4 Likes
Say it with me.
F-111!!
2 Likes
Seriously though, you nailed it for me with milsim vs. civilian sim.
3 Likes
It’s interesting that you guys jumped to random failures, while what i meant was systems working correctly, but with their true limitations modelled (like false/no classification by an RWR).
2 Likes