No pilot body for the MiG-21?

[sirrah]

Really thought I've seen it on YT video's in the past, but now I can't find it in the control section, neither is it on by default.

 

If there isn't, are there plans to add it in the near future?

 

Asking, because if there isn't and will never be a VR pilot body for this module, I can cross this bird from my potential buying list :)

[Skopikus]

You can read forum for same question. It will be one time.

But there is no "VR bodies" here. Just a body with HOTAS. As I know, or at least on that time when me tried "bodies" in other modules, you will have body that will hold hotas + 2 actual hands that will be your sensor hands - looks stoopid when you put touch controllers on table and have 4 hands.

My opinion body is no need in VR, you will still need your stick, throttle and pedals and you need to be a geek to adjust them to same place and with Oculus Touch you will need to think where to put your "hands" when you holding real stick. If fuel tank jettison button will be somewhere else I likely to turn off stick aswel.

 

This is simulator of MiG21 - not a simolator of MiG21 pilot and it does it's job well!!!

 

And defenetly bodiy is less needed than a proper blody cockpit model that have no holes in it and have more than just wings without plane body when you look outside of the cabin.

Wait till 75% discount this module is worth 11£ no more on this state for VR experience.

Still worth 40 quid for monitor flyin but compaign makes no sense and shows no knowledge about how you should effectively use your MiG21.

Edited April 24, 2020 by Skopikus

[sirrah]

I probably didn't understand everything you just said. But I don't have any intention of using VR (touch) controllers in DCS (I have PointCTRL for that).

 

I merely wish to know if the MiG-21 cockpit will stay "empty" and with that, will keep me feel like my arms and legs are amputated when I sit in it..

 

But after doing a little more searching in this sub-forum, I guess the answer is no... no VR pilot body is to be expected..

 

Ah well.. plenty of other great DCS modules out there :)

[rossmum]

AFAIK pilot body is planned with the new cockpit, I could be wrong though.

[Harlikwin]

AFAIK pilot body is planned with the new cockpit, I could be wrong though.

 

I think they mentioned that it would come with that yes, so probably after the F4U

[Gretsch_Man]

I would also really like to have the pilot body shown in the cockpit. An empty cockpit in VR looks kinda weird.

[Mentos]

I hope to see a new Pilot Body in the future. Also a new pilot body after ejection. Now its from Su-25 :(

[westr]

I’ve asked a few times via their website but never get a reply. I love the 21 but only fly in VR so I no longer fly it. Unfortunately it will stop me buying the Corsair as well.  As said there are other modules that have a VR pilot and I use them. Some people will think it’s insane but it is something that has become a real immersion breaker for me and I just can’t fly without thinking about it. I don’t have the space and can’t justify the expense of a home pit so VR for me is a much cheaper but also really enjoyable and immersive experience. But after investing a lot with jetseat all my Hotas and pedals etc I don’t want immersion broken by looking down and seeing an empty chair. If people feel it’s not necessary that’s fair enough normally they are users in 2d not always, but that’s their opinion and I have mine and my own feelings on the subject. The developers of course are entitled to not develop it. In which case there is nothing I can do, I just won’t buy the modules. That’s not out of spite, it’s just that I know I wont use them. It would just be nice to have confirmation either way if it’s being done or not from the magnitude devs. 

[Gizmo03]

I fully agree.

I check every single OB update for the implementation of any pilotbody. For the MiG-21, the F-14, F-16 or the A-10. 

I like the P-47 but i hesitated to buy it - until the last update when the pilotbody was implemented.

I know that a lot of people don't use it because it can hide some instruments or panels therefore they don't need or want it (even though you can switch it on and off as you need). That's the reason why they don't want the developers to waste time and manpower to develope a pilotbody instead of solving bugs and implementing other features. That's ok and i totally understand that but it's odd to look down and see an empty cockpit. It's just not natural.

 

Imagine you wouldn't see a pilot sitting in the cockpit when you change to the "F2" view .... i bet a bunch of people would be pretty upset.

It's a bit strange to me that a lot of people don't care about an emty cockpit ("F1" view) while spending about 95% of a flight inside the cockpit while an empty cockpit in the external view would be a nogo.

[Skopikus]

I told it once I will repeat it again. I'm not on this threds popular side but I tried body on other modules and it was even more weird: I had body that was holding stick and throttle and I had my touch controlled hands.

  I bet that would take a huge amount of work to make body that will exploit ability of newer VR sets with full body motion tracking. And if you do not use full motion tracking you will see that weird movement of your arms you have in VR games. If you use something like mouse or other ways to click your cockpit stuff - that will even more make that weird when your hand stay on stick, but your switches and buttons moves.

My opinion having no virtual body makes it more immersive than having alien body that moves in strange ways. But for flat screen simers it can add some immersion me think. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by Skopikus

[Gizmo03]

Just switch it off. What‘s the problem?

[westr]

On 1/23/2021 at 10:47 PM, Skopikus said:

I told it once I will repeat it again. I'm not on this threds popular side but I tried body on other modules and it was even more weird: I had body that was holding stick and throttle and I had my touch controlled hands.

  I bet that would take a huge amount of work to make body that will exploit ability of newer VR sets with full body motion tracking. And if you do not use full motion tracking you will see that weird movement of your arms you have in VR games. If you use something like mouse or other ways to click your cockpit stuff - that will even more make that weird when your hand stay on stick, but your switches and buttons moves.

My opinion having no virtual body makes it more immersive than having alien body that moves in strange ways. But for flat screen simers it can add some immersion me think. 

 

Your opinion. Not the opinion of many VR users. 
I don’t use the touch controllers. I’ve always found it to difficult to have them on my arms and take my hands off the stick then use them then take them off and put my hands on the stick. Not sure how other VR users find them. Eventually I hope to get something like pointctrl. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by westr

[Lovcar]

Согласён! Тело нужно на 1000%.Мне тоже без тела плохо!Летаю VR. 

[westr]

On 1/13/2021 at 7:57 PM, westr said:

I’ve asked a few times via their website but never get a reply. I love the 21 but only fly in VR so I no longer fly it. Unfortunately it will stop me buying the Corsair as well.  As said there are other modules that have a VR pilot and I use them. Some people will think it’s insane but it is something that has become a real immersion breaker for me and I just can’t fly without thinking about it. I don’t have the space and can’t justify the expense of a home pit so VR for me is a much cheaper but also really enjoyable and immersive experience. But after investing a lot with jetseat all my Hotas and pedals etc I don’t want immersion broken by looking down and seeing an empty chair. If people feel it’s not necessary that’s fair enough normally they are users in 2d not always, but that’s their opinion and I have mine and my own feelings on the subject. The developers of course are entitled to not develop it. In which case there is nothing I can do, I just won’t buy the modules. That’s not out of spite, it’s just that I know I wont use them. It would just be nice to have confirmation either way if it’s being done or not from the magnitude devs. 

I’ve managed to get a reply from Magnitude/Leatherneck. I’m sure they won’t mind me posting this as they were happy to provide me with the information. VR pilot is planned for the phase 2 cockpit implementation. Which is great news as far as I’m concerned, and I know there’s lots of users out there which will be delighted as well. Unfortunately they couldn’t give me a time span, I asked would it be released this year and they couldn’t say. At this moment their top priority is the F4-U. 
So as far as I’m concerned I will continue to buy and support LN/Magnitude. I’m really pleased because I love the way the mig flies and it’s quirkiness. And it’s good to know they recognise this as a feature important enough to implement. I think it is, as I have said before, not necessarily an easy feature to produce and implement and takes a bit of time and effort, certainly judging by how long it has taken also with other developers and modules. But as I say I’m really pleased to have received a reply. 

[upupandaway]

Thx for the info. A pilot body would be greatly appreciated (by me).

[Gizmo03]

Am 10.4.2021 um 18:44 schrieb westr:

I’ve managed to get a reply from Magnitude/Leatherneck. I’m sure they won’t mind me posting this as they were happy to provide me with the information. VR pilot is planned for the phase 2 cockpit implementation. 

Very good news. Thanks for sharing. I know they mentioned a VR Pilot as part of the reworked Cockpit but it‘s great to know that it‘s still on their list.

[samdan87]

On 4/11/2021 at 12:44 AM, westr said:

I’ve managed to get a reply from Magnitude/Leatherneck. I’m sure they won’t mind me posting this as they were happy to provide me with the information. VR pilot is planned for the phase 2 cockpit implementation. Which is great news as far as I’m concerned, and I know there’s lots of users out there which will be delighted as well. Unfortunately they couldn’t give me a time span, I asked would it be released this year and they couldn’t say. At this moment their top priority is the F4-U. 
So as far as I’m concerned I will continue to buy and support LN/Magnitude. I’m really pleased because I love the way the mig flies and it’s quirkiness. And it’s good to know they recognise this as a feature important enough to implement. I think it is, as I have said before, not necessarily an easy feature to produce and implement and takes a bit of time and effort, certainly judging by how long it has taken also with other developers and modules. But as I say I’m really pleased to have received a reply. 

Thanks, I was looking all over for this. I just got the Mig-21 and fly exclusively VR.

 

In respect of your comment on PointCTRL, I built my own for about $35 worth of parts. Happy to share build plans and code, but needs some Python knowledge cos I haven't compiled it into an exe.

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by samdan87

[rogorogo]

As others have already stated, dear OP, please use the correct wording.

You - and surely many others, me among them - express desire for a rendered "Pilot Avatar", be it in VR or headtracking on Monitor.

If - and that is a very big "if" due to it being not easily understood by most and ressource-intensive in coding - possible a Pilot Avatar that supports postional offsets, has animation resolvers imlemented that sync witht he VR or headtracking pitch/yaw/roll/x,y,z coordinates (at least to some extent as general fidelic boundaries would be a global ED topic)

Edited April 27, 2021 by rogorogo

[zaelu]

On 4/10/2021 at 6:44 PM, westr said:

I’ve managed to get a reply from Magnitude/Leatherneck. [..} At this moment their top priority is the F4-U. 
So as far as I’m concerned I will continue to buy and support LN/Magnitude. [..]

Mmm, No. I will probably never buy the F4U or I will buy it at a huge sale... in 5+ years. If all things go well and we are good and healthy till then...

[sirrah]

On 4/27/2021 at 2:51 PM, rogorogo said:

As others have already stated, dear OP, please use the correct wording.

 

Only just see this reply now.

Apart from very few souls, everybody on this forum knows what is meant when talking about a VR pilot body.

 

Anyways, it's good to see that the devs do plan a pilot body at some point. Thanks for sharing @westr

[rogorogo]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb sirrah:

 

Only just see this reply now.

Apart from very few souls, everybody on this forum knows what is meant when talking about a VR pilot body.

 

Anyways, it's good to see that the devs do plan a pilot body at some point. Thanks for sharing @westr

?

Well.. good for you and the entire world you have interacted with and reached consensus on about that.

But you are not typing this for your perceived "everyone" - you are typing an OP and every contribution for the actual everyone.

 

People who might be new to DCS, people who might look something up and don't usually participate, people who are unaware this forum exists but find the topic via a google search.
You type it for devs who might talk internally about the if and the how to do this, or not.

You type this to not provide a pretense for other devs who might look for one to not greenlight something, or not seed a global standard in-suite.

So you always have to be clear, precise and beyond ambiguity if you start a discussion.
And if you do not want that, you are in the end only diminishing yourself and everyone else of opportunities and chances for product improvement.
As much as by the how and the what you, me, we type you, me, we, all of us control the tonality (mostly) when instigating a topic.

Edited June 29, 2021 by rogorogo
too many typos

[sirrah]

8 hours ago, rogorogo said:

?

Well.. good for you and the entire world you have interacted with and reached consensus on about that.

But you are not typing this for your perceived "everyone" - you are typing an OP and every contribution for the actual everyone.

 

People who might be new to DCS, people who might look something up and don't usually participate, people who are unaware this forum exists but find the topic via a google search.
You type it for devs who might talk internally about the if and the how to do this, or not.

You type this to not provide a pretense for other devs who might look for one to not greenlight something, or not seed a global standard in-suite.

So you always have to be clear, precise and beyond ambiguity if you start a discussion.
And if you do not want that, you are in the end only diminishing yourself and everyone else of opportunities and chances for product improvement.
As much as by the how and the what you, me, we type you, me, we, all of us control the tonality (mostly) when instigating a topic.

 

Ok mate, I'm very sorry you didn't understand my OP. I'll try and choose my words more carefully next time. Also I'm sorry if I offended you, or anyone else for that matter, as that is never my intention.

For now, don't worry, this is just a forum thread and not a legal document that requires you to respond or take action.

 

My question got answered positively. Thanks for that. 

 

@moderator: you may close this thread now if you want 

 

[Crash *]

Am 27.4.2021 um 14:51 schrieb rogorogo:

As others have already stated, dear OP, please use the correct wording.

You - and surely many others, me among them - express desire for a rendered "Pilot Avatar", be it in VR or headtracking on Monitor.

If - and that is a very big "if" due to it being not easily understood by most and ressource-intensive in coding - possible a Pilot Avatar that supports postional offsets, has animation resolvers imlemented that sync witht he VR or headtracking pitch/yaw/roll/x,y,z coordinates (at least to some extent as general fidelic boundaries would be a global ED topic)

 

I do not agree with that.

 

An avatar is a body that is specifically assigned to a person and their characteristics. Something with which you differentiate yourself from others in virtual space with distinguishable features.

 

A VR pilot's body is the uniform representation of a body without a head in uniform aviator clothing.

 

Personally, I will continue to use the term "VR body."

[rogorogo]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Crash *:

I do not agree with that.

 

An avatar is a body that is specifically assigned to a person and their characteristics. Something with which you differentiate yourself from others in virtual space with distinguishable features.

 

A VR pilot's body is the uniform representation of a body without a head in uniform aviator clothing.

 

Personally, I will continue to use the term "VR body."

well, you can call it personally what you want, as long as you explain what you mean (every single time) - it just does not change what it is or what (most) of the people involved in the gaming industry (yes, gaming industry, I can't change that as much as the sky is blue when its sunny.. unless you are in Beijing, the absurd smog does weird things there) will label it (but fear not, E-D and most of their third parties are quirky enough to make everything very confusing).

Also what is a "VR body" if one does not use VR? 
Or is "VR" a personal, subjective interpretation assumed to be "clear to eeeeeeeeveryonnnnnee.. HERE!" too?

But again, you did not instigate the topic, so feel free and you do you (really).

But back on topic - the <<insert term of preference here>> is also not headless per se. 
If coded with an inner and outer render model and a floating cam-point is used with the absolute zero in the middle of the head the inner render is commented out and the offset floating from there.
And from there the variants roam free (effort, time, budget,....)
It can be a unified render model with the cam point glued to an eye and offsets disabled by hardset override.
It can be a limited cam vector tied to head and upper body limits.
It can be an animated body with offsets corelating body animations and maximum movements (one contemporary product even has your butt slushing around in the seat if you go y-down with a hard max).
And all of that with or without zoom (the actual zoom which is just that - zoom, not movement along the z-axis).
It can have all of the above but no resolvers.
Or no hardsets.
Or all of the above and so much more not mentioned every anywhere by anyone unknow to most that are everyone but only almost.
And anything in-between.

Given what module this is about (the sole and only reason I ever looked at DCS btw)- all of it highly unlikely as time and budget would be rather difficult to allocate for yet another module-specific solution in what should be a franchise-wide unified standard in the first place (as so many other and quite relevant topics btw) imho but one can always hope and hope dies last I have been told.

And as we are consumers, not creators, not developers, not multiplicators, fractured by our very nature of diversity, preferences, moods, constraints - we can express product wishes, desires that might or might not get realized (hint: if we all feel equally unsatisfied then in the most competent way actually - cognitive dissonance und so weiter, gell?).

 

The - safe, quite comfortable, effortless and subjectively instantly rewarding - alternative is to just echo something unspecific at each other, or even the lowest and/or safest denominator, or even be lingustically crowding out from the safety of a one-way bubble while revelling in proactive auto-shunting (hint hint wink wink OP)  - but whether to simply go "mooh" or don a tutu and dance in front of a street organ does not matter, it will only result in fractured voices not being heard save for being a pretense for something.

 

If you are fine with that - jo mei, passt ah, woarad ja neds erste ors lezde moi göööh ?
 

[sirrah]

43 minutes ago, rogorogo said:

well, you can call it personally what you want, as long as you explain what you mean (every single time) - it just does not change what it is or what (most) of the people involved in the gaming industry (yes, gaming industry, I can't change that as much as the sky is blue when its sunny.. unless you are in Beijing, the absurd smog does weird things there) will label it (but fear not, E-D and most of their third parties are quirky enough to make everything very confusing).

Also what is a "VR body" if one does not use VR? 
Or is "VR" a personal, subjective interpretation assumed to be "clear to eeeeeeeeveryonnnnnee.. HERE!" too?

But again, you did not instigate the topic, so feel free and you do you (really).

But back on topic - the <<insert term of preference here>> is also not headless per se. 
If coded with an inner and outer render model and a floating cam-point is used with the absolute zero in the middle of the head the inner render is commented out and the offset floating from there.
And from there the variants roam free (effort, time, budget,....)
It can be a unified render model with the cam point glued to an eye and offsets disabled by hardset override.
It can be a limited cam vector tied to head and upper body limits.
It can be an animated body with offsets corelating body animations and maximum movements (one contemporary product even has your butt slushing around in the seat if you go y-down with a hard max).
And all of that with or without zoom (the actual zoom which is just that - zoom, not movement along the z-axis).
It can have all of the above but no resolvers.
Or no hardsets.
Or all of the above and so much more not mentioned every anywhere by anyone unknow to most that are everyone but only almost.
And anything in-between.

Given what module this is about (the sole and only reason I ever looked at DCS btw)- all of it highly unlikely as time and budget would be rather difficult to allocate for yet another module-specific solution in what should be a franchise-wide unified standard in the first place (as so many other and quite relevant topics btw) imho but one can always hope and hope dies last I have been told.

And as we are consumers, not creators, not developers, not multiplicators, fractured by our very nature of diversity, preferences, moods, constraints - we can express product wishes, desires that might or might not get realized (hint: if we all feel equally unsatisfied then in the most competent way actually - cognitive dissonance und so weiter, gell?).

 

The - safe, quite comfortable, effortless and subjectively instantly rewarding - alternative is to just echo something unspecific at each other, or even the lowest and/or safest denominator, or even be lingustically crowding out from the safety of a one-way bubble while revelling in proactive auto-shunting (hint hint wink wink OP)  - but whether to simply go "mooh" or don a tutu and dance in front of a street organ does not matter, it will only result in fractured voices not being heard save for being a pretense for something.

 

If you are fine with that - jo mei, passt ah, woarad ja neds erste ors lezde moi göööh ?
 

 

I didn't want to reply any further in this thread, but I just couldn't resist:

 

I've read your post 3 times, but I really don't understand what you are saying. My general understanding of the English language is failing me here I'm afraid. I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you want a pilot body to be added, don't you want it, doesn't it matter to you if it is added or not? Or are you trying to say something else? (truly and no sarcasm intended, I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say in reaction to my OP).

 

On the matter of using clear, precise and beyond ambiguity words, when starting a topic:

First of all, I already apologized to you in my previous post (not that I had to, because there's absolutely no reason for you to lecture me on how I should write my posts here), I think you are wildly exaggerating this, but ok... If you want it..

I used the term "Pilot body" in my thread title and that is totally correct, as this is what it is called in DCS:

 

 

In my OP I also used the term "VR pilot body" as this is generally used on this forum (where we are now) to indicate one is talking about the body you see when in F1 view (not the external view)

 

 

 

Let's please stop this nonsense discussion.

Again, my question "Will we at some point get a pilot body in the Mig-21" has been answered by @westr, as he was so kind to share with us the communication he had with Magnitude/Leatherneck.