No I said people who don't use the cockpit view doesn't always make them "arcaders" as you used it in a derogatory way. What we're not as good as you because the camera view doesn't let me play that way.
Exactly what I said. You want to beleive it's "more real", so you took offense to my post. All you've done is repeat that after saying "no". lol
If I didn't get sick from it I'd probably use it, even though its as unrealistic field of view as the "bumper cam".
You make this whole high and mighty post about it being a simulator so drive it that way, you want a simulator, buy yourself 3 PS3's and 2 more monitors and give yourself a true field of vision. Because for example, if you've ever rallied a car IRL you're looking out the side window for at least a 1/3rd of the time.
Ok, you and some other's don't get it.
Seriously, this post is not about attitude - but feel free to interpret it that way if you wish.
This will be long, so bear with me.
Let's look at the theoretical concept of the ULTIMATE simulation. The absolute pinnacle ever possible to achieve with unlimited technology. I hate to use this as an example, but it's easy because more people know it - The Matrix.
You plug yourself physically into a computer and it totally over-rides your senses and physical body, projecting tailored sensations to all your senses (down to internal sensations of inner ear, adrenaline, etc), and all your motor control impulses are intercepted and used to control your virtual self while your physical self remains motionless.
Now, in this, you experience G-loads, heat, wind, the feel of the controls, and see everything you would see if you were inside the actual machine.
Ok. Now most people think that is the only thing that can be called a simulator. This is absolutely not true. Simulators actually go back to pilot training for WWI. This is what I keep saying about limitations of the interface, ya just gotta accept them and do the best possible thing within them. Moving on...
Now that the bar has been set, let's step it back toward the current reality in increments.
One step away from the above would be a set of 'trodes or DNI (Direct Neural Interface) which pipes in sight and sound, but does not over-ride your physical being, so you will still move around and have to close your eyes and remain in an otherwise quiet room.
You still see everything you would if you were actually there for real though. And your head movment and even eye movement still work with the expected result.
Still too far from present day. So let's step back once more.
A 'glo-go' rig - Gloves/Goggles, as seen in the movie Johnny Mnemonic. Here an HMD (Head Mounted Display) replaces the interface cable or electrodes, with tiny screens which occupy your entire field of vision and high-tech headphones which block outside sound over-ride and replace both your senses of sight and sound. Input can be monitored via camera (like Kinect or Move), or through wearing super sensitive GPS and accelerometer equipped devices ("gloves"), or, in the case of a simulation where your body movememnts don't matter, you can just grab hold of a set of physical controls which can have FFB applied.
With this, you still are totally immersed in the sight and sound just as you would be, you aren't seeing your physical body (or the physical world at all), head tracking works properly and eye tracking isn't needed because of the screen size and proximity. You even get to feel the sensation of having your backside in a racing seat and harness strapped over your shoulders. Yet... crucially, you still lack the inner ear sensations.
Now, just for a bit of snark - this is where people claiming things like needing a million monitors for any shred of realism would say "since you aren't feeling the G's, it can't be called realistic", which makes me wonder if they are just dense, or simply operating with an agenda. But at any rate.....
For many, the above would be the ultimate with modern technology (short of a moving platform), and with enough money, it's actually do-able today.
But that's the key - enough money. It simply isn't there to develop that because the consumer can not acquire it.
So we need to step back yet again. We need to move the display away from our heads, and pipe it to a normal screen instead of an HMD.
And now you see the point. All you do is move that display. You still are looking through your virtual counter-part's eyes. Seeing what they would see. Only, because we are using a normal screen, we also see our living rooms or computer rooms too. And - that fact does not matter in the slightest. In the pursuit of simulation, you have to show the view of the pilots eyes, were he to be in there, AND, when you do not have access to a full cockpit mockup, the cockpit and instruments MUST be displayed on the screen.
Turning it off is in truth, no different to turning off fuel consumption, or damage, or simplifying the physics.
Yes, there are inherent limitations - you DON'T see the full field of view, you don't have items in life-size, and you can't look around in the same manner. But you are still seeing through your virtual eyes, seeing the cockpit around you just as you would if you were there, and having your view blocked by a-pillars or canopy bars and dash-boards. There are only so many ways to point out the relavance of those items - they are equal to physics, fuel use, and damage. In fact, it's arguable that it's MORE important than fuel use or damage even. And as cited prior, the fact that the disconnect is intensified so much that people get sick from it simply proves the point beyond contention (any logic based contention at any rate).
Now I'll go the other direction -> GT1 was realistic. Realistic for a simulation on the PS1. The PS1 didn't have the power to do things like weather or damage. It didn't have the peripherals for control input. It didn't have the resolution for cabin views. But, it did everything possible within the limitations, and for it's interface and era, it was indeed realistic.
Remember above how I said simulators have been around since 1917. They were crucial for pilot training and for air-crew training in WW2 (and after), and for astrounaut training from Apollo on-ward. If they were not realistic in any way shape or form as you guys are effectively claiming (by proxy, since you (<- collective "you", not singular) claim that without head tracking and a thousand monitors on a life-size video wall it's not realistic), then it would have been not only non-effective as a training tool, it would actually have been a dangerous detriment to said pilots, air-crews and astronauts.
Now, since we have the PS3 and the power for cabin views (along with everything else - improved graphic detail, improved physics, damage, etc), we must add that, and when doing so (as has been done), we achieve simulation/realism all over again, just that it's MUCH improved from GT1.
And regarding the physical controls - it's up to the end user. Since the sim designer made it with replica controls in mind, if the user doesn't wish to use them, that's on them - it does not render the application any less of a sim (only the given method of use of it). Likewise however, if they do choose to use replica controls, it is purely for the physical sensation and motion - absolutely NOT for the visual aspect, all visual aspects of the sim are on-screen. ALL. You must learn (or be able) to separate what you see around you from what you see on the screen.
Some people can't do that. This is why some people get motion sickness. So adjust accordingly. But where you run afoul is by trying to call those adjustments (which are inherently designed to reduce immersion) "more real". It's not. It is in fact, quite the opposite.
Further, if you don't have a clutch pedal with adjustable FFB and a 6-speed shifter that identically matches the car you're in, under your point of view, can you really call that "realistic"? If you are honest, then no, you can not. Because you are taking it incorrectly, leading to a double-standard, and the very point of contention here. (many wheels only have paddle shifters too, so you end up shifting a Cobra with wheel paddles....)
Regarding head tracking. This would be preferable. Or some micro-stick even. Because, yes, you do look in the direction of movement, not the center line of the vehicle. But, wonderwoman view (bumper cam) doens't solve that either. You might get a little more, but not enough. And until we get the hardware, or code optimization (GT5 updates, or PS3 OS updates) to allow the PS Eye to work in all cars, we are stuck and have to live with that limitation (just like the limitations of resolution and screen size).
For flight sims, my Cougar HOTAS ("Hands On Throttle And Stick") has a micro-joystick which I typically use to control the view direction. So I can look around me in combat. Something like that would be workable too. (bit more unweildy here though as my left hand moves far less on a throttle than it does on a wheel lol) Many people use Track IR. I personally don't like being blasted in the face with IR, but it is a step closer to actually being there.
Of course - what happens when that is implemented then? Under the premise that screen size is too small so cabin view is too restrictive, OR that having "2 wheels" is "not realisitc", then what do you do when you are looking around? Can't claim lack of visibility as a justification, so you MUST then include interior obstructions (dash, a-pillars, etc). You can't very well look down to no wheel or pedals then. And you still have a limited FOV and level of "zoom" (not really zoom, but close in principle), as well as overall screen size and resolution. So we are back to the beginning with what we already have now. With the current level of technology and on this interface, cabin on IS more realistic and is more of a sim.
Again, I don't care if you don't like to use it or can't. You paid the money, play how you like and enjoy it. Just don't blow smoke up my a$$ about wonderwoman view being more real. That's all. (and don't try to deny me and others the option of making it a restriction in an online room we set up - you don't have to play in that room if you don't wish to)
in Cockpit view is unrealistic and goes against your pursuit of realism. If you have been on track in real life, you will understand that your eyes stabilize images on the retina during head movement by producing an eye movement in the direction opposite to head movement, thus preserving the image on the center of the visual field. For example, when the head moves to the right, the eyes move to the left, and vice versa. Since slight head movement is present all the time, the VOR is very important for stabilizing vision.
