Actually, someone else found your thread in that other forum interesting and started a discussion about it here:
(EDIT: It is linked to your thread in SIMHQ)
Message Edited on 06/14/0301:23AM by rbstr44
This will require a huge effort on the 3D and programming department. Basically, a total re-design of textures and materials, and for each plane/cockpit. Way too much. We may get virtual glasses and periferic devices by then [img]/i/smilies/16x16_man-happy.gif[/img]
I think this is a great idea, if possible.
I would even support going further and making the whole side strut transparent. As well as designing the upper struts in the correct position.
I would do so not because this is the manner in which the real strut appears in reality, but because of the already non-existent manner in which peripheral vision is modeled in sims and on computer monitors.
I feel like the lack of peripheral vision, and visual acuity already detracts from realistic perception in the sim, and see no reason to carry this to a further extreme by modeling the cockpit struts to such a high degree of realistic apperance and further blocking up to 50% of the available screen area.
Elimination of big cockpit canopy was best done with clear bubble canopies. There is a reason designers tried to move away from the framed canopies, and what we see in FB is the reason why.
I am not sure the "model head movement" is so simple. Especially in high g~turns or in buffeted high speed aircraft, head movement is not as easy as we do it in front of computer. Experienced fighter pilots perhaps could get away with some rapid head movements more than Newbie pilots.
In fact, I will make the statement that FB should model aircraft flight from the perspective of the low time inexperienced pilot. But everybody wants to be an ace.
Funny, the Il~2 has the most massive canopy struts in THE GAME, yet nobobdy complains about the view during ground attack. [img]/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif[/img] The horrible canopy struts in many FB aircraft are annoying, but may be what real pilots had to deal with.
"I am not sure the "model head movement" is so simple. Especially in high g~turns or in buffeted high speed aircraft, head movement is not as easy as we do it in front of computer."
Yes this is true. But this does not even address the lack of pheripheral vision in sims on on monitors.
One can move their head all over the place in front of their monitor and their view does not change. It is still the small 30 degree picture in front of them. Of course with TrackIR the picture on the monitor pans, but one is still left with a 30 degree image.
In a real warplane one had the benefit of almost 180 degree vision from side to side also when looking directly forward. This adds much to ones orientation to the horizon as well as to the view of the enemy.
If we are seeking realism there needs to be some manner in which to make up for, if only slightly this lack of vision as well as the visual accuity lost due to the lesser resolutions of computer monitors vs. reality.
An easy manner in which to see this difference is the amount of vision one has in their car vs. sitting in front of their monitor. The only difference would be the height of ones dashboard and the lack of rear visibility. As in your car, side to side visibility is virtually unobstructed.
Ones monitor picture especially in cockpit view comes nowhere near this, or the view in reality. In this respect, many actual pilots have stated that they feel open cockpit is more representitive of the view in an actual warplane. And most actual aircraft simulators do not simulate an instrument panel or cockpit structure.
As usual somewhere in the middle is probably more accurate than either extreme.
Message Edited on 06/13/0310:46PM by James_Gang
You got me to thinking of a neat idea, but first....
We have up to 90 degree field of view on our monitors in FB. We are not limited to 30 degrees. Peripheral vision cannot detect small objects like aircraft beyond the cockpit. No need to compensate for anything here.
The almost 180 degree field of view is purely for orientation purposes, which is why we must turn our heads in the general direction, then zero in by moving our eyes to see small objects there. You cannot detect a distant aircraft outside of about 20 dgrees of your sight center, of course that number is dependent on apparent aircraft size, illumination, and relative apparent velocity.
Now, this is an idea you may enjoy, and will not hurt frame~rate:: how about when we look outside the cockpit and focus at infinity, we see two (2) canopy frames that are both evenly semi-transparent, except for an evenly solid non~transparent overlap. But no overlap for very thin cockpit struts. This would be the realistic way to model binocular vision of near objects when we focus on objects far outside our cockpits.
The problem here is that doing this on a computer screen would be even more visually irritating, as the double image would take up more space than the single strut image we have now. But then perhaps your single ghost canopy struts could be done with a few steps in transparency rather than many--a compromise on CPU computations.
Funny, the solid massive strut of Fw-190 would then be two overlapping massive struts of the same size. [img]/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif[/img] I don't think we would like this, even if you could see through the non~overlapped images.
I say they should concentrate their programming on improving AI behavior in THE GAME. Granted a ghost canopy would help the ace arcade online dogfighers against humanoid piloted aircraft. I would be interested in hearing a complaint from ground attack simmers about the canopy struts in the Il~2, struts which make the Fw-190 canopy a bubble canopy by comparison.
I'd love to see somebody try to tell Oleg he got the Il~2 cockpit wrong. hehehe
Message Edited on 06/14/0303:13AM by LEXX_Luthor
If it can be done, it would make the cockpit even more realistic, but my opinion is that it has to be even more transparent than the top picture shows, and it has to aply to all the struts in the 'pit..
I don't know whether or not it is easy to program but it would be more realistic..
Its a great idea and if implemented, should be selectable as an option under the difficulty settings.
<center> ================================================== ========================= </center>