PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire and FW190 gunsight



ajafoofoo
02-12-2004, 10:29 AM
Well, I remember reading the FW190 had a slighty better view through the gunsight over the nose for deflection than the spitfire.

Well, to me the first shot of the spitfire cockpit seems to show the opposite.

Are pilot accounts of the gunsight on the fw190 just plain wrong?

Is this only a problem due to the sim not being to handle refraction or something and the pits are technically correct?

ajafoofoo
02-12-2004, 10:29 AM
Well, I remember reading the FW190 had a slighty better view through the gunsight over the nose for deflection than the spitfire.

Well, to me the first shot of the spitfire cockpit seems to show the opposite.

Are pilot accounts of the gunsight on the fw190 just plain wrong?

Is this only a problem due to the sim not being to handle refraction or something and the pits are technically correct?

faustnik
02-12-2004, 10:31 AM
All our gunsights is correct.

Please don't start.

Ignore the gunsight use the force.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

lbhskier37
02-12-2004, 10:37 AM
Don't let gibbage see this! From what I see, I think people are really scared of what the FW would be if it had a descent view and wasnt the only plane not overmodeled in climb. But we need to stop complaining cause we have an ubernoob plane.

"& i said that the 190 is a noob plane cause thier so damn easy to fly it's just plain silly."--Copperhead310th

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

Zen--
02-12-2004, 11:06 AM
Who said the 190 is an easy plane to fly? Was that a serious comment?

Wow

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

horseback
02-12-2004, 11:09 AM
The reason the 190 had good vision for the pilot was that when correctly trimmed for level flight, it flew with a bit of a 'nose down' attitude. The cockpit in Il-2 and FB is correctly modeled; it's the flight angle that's porked.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Cyrano
02-12-2004, 11:39 AM
The cockpit's forward visibility is not correctly modeled. There's a guy a few months back on this forum who actually took the time to take pictures of an actual FW A6 in cockpit. Those pictures conclusively proved what everyone knew, that is that big bar we see under the gunsight in FB's FW was not nearly as big in real life and the pilot sat slightly higher then what we have in the game. Hence the forward visibilty was much better then what we have in the game. The only problem is that for some unknown reason the developer here refuses to accept that. Old topic really, too bad nothing has been changed.

kyrule2
02-12-2004, 11:53 AM
The 190's view is BS, but they will never change it so do yourself a favor and accept it for what it is (incorrect). You get used to it after awhile anyway.

The climb-rates of the 190 are wrong as well, as someone else said they are one of the few planes whose climb is not overmodelled. This is not really acceptable, hopefully they are being looked at since alot of FM are being worked on for the expansion.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

ajafoofoo
02-12-2004, 12:36 PM
Horseback, are you saying the level flight of the plane itself and the cockpit is porked or just the attitude of the cockpit?

XyZspineZyX
02-12-2004, 12:42 PM
Last I remember, after the person who published his photos of the Focke Wulf pit did so, Oleg published his.

Many agreed that what Oleg assumed was the lower bar of the window was, on closer inspection, "doubled up" in thickness by a reflection in the glass. The latter photos did not have this effect, and hence, seemed half as thin.

The FW canopy/gunsight is wrong. Be sure. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BlindHuck
02-12-2004, 12:43 PM
I believe http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif(therefore undisputable fact, so don't start http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif) that its a head movement issue. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
I would suggest that NORMAL view is slightly above gunsight and one can stretch up a little to improve view down nose but this wouldn't be in line with sight. Based on photos I've spent countless hours tirelessly analyzing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif (All for the GOOD of the community! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif)

"I race full real exclusively in IL2:The Forgotten Battles." - Mark Donohue

Cardinal25
02-12-2004, 12:45 PM
I have not seen the more important issue with the 190 view talked about so I'll start.

Why does the D-9 have a bar on the top of the canopy? I have never seen a pic of one with that bar there.

Any one?

-----------------------------
Asshat = Don't do it. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

faustnik
02-12-2004, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cardinal25:
I have not seen the more important issue with the 190 view talked about so I'll start.

Why does the D-9 have a bar on the top of the canopy? I have never seen a pic of one with that bar there.

Any one?

-----------------------------
Asshat = _http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good call, I never realized that. No, in the pics I have it looks like the bar ends at the pilot's seat.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

VW-IceFire
02-12-2004, 02:26 PM
Apparently the structures are correct...there's other things that aren't modeled that may be an issue.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

MandMs
02-12-2004, 02:33 PM
That bar in the top of the canopy is a hinge. As the canopy slides back the width decreases. The glazing would break if there was no hinge.

All Fw canopies had this hinge.

It is good that the modelling of the Fw's forward view is buggered because if it was modelled correctly, the Fw would have VVS, RAF and USAAF planes for breakfast, lunch and dinner, 24/7.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[This message was edited by MandMs on Thu February 12 2004 at 01:44 PM.]

resev
02-12-2004, 03:17 PM
Do we realy need to argue about this again?

I mean, damn, year and a half ago, we had a huge discussion about this, that raised sparks all over the forums, in the GD, in the defunct PL, and also on the ORR, that lasted for a full week.
Even the community managers at the time (Cartrix and Fishdog) intervened in the threads, and if they did, so did Oleg.

I still have all the animations i made on ppurpose for that thread in one of my websites, both the prerogative (because of the ungulfment) and also the serious ones.

I kept them to remind me of the worst thread ever in the history of the game forum.

No matter how many turns one gives to it, the result is still the most reasonable one.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

horseback
02-12-2004, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ajafoofoo:
Horseback, are you saying the level flight of the plane itself and the cockpit is porked or just the attitude of the cockpit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's hard to say which; but looking at the reference of the horizon from the cockpit in level flight, that is, when you're neither losing nor gaining altitude, the 'horizon line' should seem higher than you see from most other cockpits if your a/c is flying with the nose down attitude I've read about.

If you'd spent a lot of time in 109s, you would be constantly fighting an inclination to climb. I don't get that effect in Il-2 or FB's 190, although it's not my favored ride because the view doesn't seem right. I would expect to see a lot more windshield than I do looking straight ahead.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

LEXX_Luthor
02-12-2004, 03:22 PM
hehe I guess Refraction isn't popular anymore. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

But cultural tastes do change, from time to time.

....I say Refraction.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

BS87
02-12-2004, 03:24 PM
You do not really noticed how bad the refraction issue is in this game until you look at the cockpits of the 190s and the P47 D10/D22

Boandlgramer
02-12-2004, 03:34 PM
in october 2002 i was in the flugwerk factory.
had a talk with claus colling , the chief there.
i showed him a screenshot of an IL2-FW 190 view, and he made a comment :
"very well done" . later he said, its not possible to simulate a real cockpitview in a computer.
he is also a real pilot and he was many hours in professionell flysimulators .


so i can live with the 190 cockpit, because we don´t get an better . end of story.

Boandlgramer
Ein Stück vom Paradies ist Mein Bayern. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg

resev
02-12-2004, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
in october 2002 i was in the flugwerk factory.
had a talk with claus colling , the chief there.
i showed him a screenshot of an IL2-FW 190 view, and he made a comment :
"very well done" . later he said, its not possible to simulate a real cockpitview in a computer.
he is also a real pilot and he was many hours in professionell flysimulators .


so i can live with the 190 cockpit, because we don´t get an better . end of story.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Good anwser.
How can anyone argue with someone from Flugwerk, especialy the chief engineer!? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

ajafoofoo
02-12-2004, 07:03 PM
So the pilot account of the captured 190 was all lies.

He was not telling the truth when he said the fw190 had better view down the nose than a spitfire?

resev
02-12-2004, 07:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ajafoofoo:
So the pilot account of the captured 190 was all lies.

He was not telling the truth when he said the fw190 had better view down the nose than a spitfire?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You are talking about something you read, while we are talking about something that happens today.

It seems to me that you don't know what Flugwerk is in the first place.

Here's a little wake up call for you, Flugwerk is a company started in 1996, and use the homologue name of the original Messerchmit factory, that makes the Fw190 &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;TODAY&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;.
It cost the eyes on ones face, but it follows almost 100% of the specifications from 40 years ago.

You realy want to argue with that!?!?!?


here, i'l trow you a bone so you can read and learn about Flugwerk:

http://www.flugwerk.de/

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

[This message was edited by resev on Thu February 12 2004 at 06:42 PM.]

TooCooL34
02-12-2004, 07:46 PM
Oh yeah, Oldie but Goodie. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



=815=TooCooL34 in =815=Squad, South Korea

--Quick Spec--
WinXP Pro, AthlonXP 2500+, 512DDR, FX5900XT 128MB, two SW pr2, TIR2

kyrule2
02-12-2004, 08:29 PM
Resev, not to argue but do you really take the "well done" comment to mean "the view is absolutely correct?" He probably glanced at the picture and made the comment, he also said a computer game can't simulate a cockpit which means its nice, but nothing like the real thing. The comment would hold more sway if he was specifically asked about "the bar." The Pope himself could say the 190's view in FB is correct, but I'll use my own judgement from the numerous pictures I've seen for myself and from someone who has sat in one.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by kyrule2 on Thu February 12 2004 at 07:57 PM.]

resev
02-12-2004, 10:34 PM
Kyrule, of course i don't take it as a final answer, because either we like it or not, the decision is left, and exclusively for 1C.
However, the opinion of the chief engineer of Flugwerk cannot by any means be discarded, after all, the guy sees, seats, use, whatever in this aircraft all the time, so when it comes to a hands on aproach point of view, his opinion cannot, and must not be discarded, in fact, he ends up as the most reliable source of all!!!

Now, for all things sacred, i will show this once more:


This is what 99.9% pilots use all the time:

http://www.resev.freewebspace.com/images/fw-02.jpg

For pete's sake, this is not the way to fly.
IRL pilots were not constantly looking down of the offside recticle, unless they were going to shoot something, and only then.


Now THIS is what i'm talking about, and the way a pilot would see is surroundings.
The Fw190 has a great allround visibility, but when it comes to straight ahead, it sucks, not for the IRL pilot who would just need to tilt his head around, but for us the flight simmers!!!!

THIS:
http://www.resev.freewebspace.com/images/fw-01.jpg

See something interesting here!? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

RicknZ
02-12-2004, 10:57 PM
You see its all a myth.

The 190 was designed solely to defeat enemy planes that flew straight and level only. This is accurately shown in the game with Olegs steadfast refusal to allow deflection shooting using the 190.

Good on him.

resev
02-12-2004, 11:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RicknZ:
You see its all a myth.

The 190 was designed solely to defeat enemy planes that flew straight and level only. This is accurately shown in the game with Olegs steadfast refusal to allow deflection shooting using the 190.

Good on him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wait a minute, you are actualy telling me that you can't deflect shoot with the 190????
Daaaaamn, you realy are green. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'l tell you what, i'm out of here because i'm tired of trying to reason with a bunch of ungratefull, for the most part greenhorns.

I'l tell you something else, for the last three years the cockpit hasn't been changed, as in the eyes of 1C programmers, its as perfect as reality allows it to be in a game.
However, if you're still not pleased, you can allways grab a copy of CFS3 and have a gay old time, like the Flinstones do.

And i'l even tell you more, i'l grab me a fine strawberry milkshake, a bucket of popcorn, and i'l sit confortably in my chair, with my feet up on the desk, while i now relegate myself to a lurker status on this thread for the duration of its activity, just plain and simply enjoying the view, as i'm tired of the subject.

Have a nice day.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

kyrule2
02-12-2004, 11:53 PM
Resev, I'm sorry you are tired of the subject, but just to clarify a few things on my end.

-I'm not ungrateful, I've said numerous times that FB is the best piece of software ever made. My initial post was too harsh, I had a bad day so I apologize for that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif .

-I'm certainly no "greenhorn" and I don't see how someone's experience playing a video game would affect their judgement when presented with real life pictures, data, etc.

-The Flugwerks comment can be discarded, all he said is nice computer cockpit, he never said, or was asked about "the bar" at all. If I say I like your car, does that mean I like the wheels also? Saying "nice computer cockpit" and "the view is correct, the bar should be there" are two seperate things.

-From all of the pictures, descriptions, etc. in the infamous "bar" thread I firmly believe the view is incorrect. There was a huge amount of discussion and backing for both sides, I just came away with the opinion that it was incorrect. But that's just my opinion.

-Having said all of this its no big deal and I know it won't be changed. I wish the subject would be dropped. We just have different opinions, and thats fine. No big deal.


Now if they would just fix the climb-rates of the 190A's (or make others more accurate)....http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

resev
02-13-2004, 12:06 AM
I keep saying to myself that i'm going to remain out of this thread, but i must make one last post before oblivion.

Kyrule, my remark was in no way directed at you, or any of the old sticks, not even the slightest image of you crossed my mind.

You are certainly not ungratefull, and much less a greenhorn.
As far as i can remember, i know you for more than a year now.

The remark is directed at the diehard greenhorn fans that only see one point of view, the one that favors them, and nobody elses.

Just to clear that up.

Cheers.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

PlaneEater
02-13-2004, 12:17 AM
Oh for the love of God...


Let's all say it together, shall we?

The Fw-190 cockpit model is structurally correct, but does not account for refraction of 60mm of armored glass or the pilot having a neck.

Here are pictures I took of the armored glass of the Bf-109 at the EAA Flight Museum in Wisconsin. This should give you a good idea of how important refraction is in the visibility from the real 190's cockpit, since the armored glass is used in basically the same way.

http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/MVC-022S.JPG

http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/MVC-024S.JPG

http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/MVC-025S.JPG

http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/MVC-026S.JPG

kyrule2
02-13-2004, 12:27 AM
No problem Resev, and your point is well taken.

Take care.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

MatuDa_
02-13-2004, 12:39 AM
Look at a picture where fw190 is having its guns converged. It sits slighty nose down which means that is it flies at the same attitude as in FB the guns would hit ground 50 meters in front of the aeroplane.

There is no way to twist it, the attitude has been nose-down. As far as the flugwerk-comment is concerned, FW pit IS a very good 3d model of the real thing. Being a very good 3Dmodel still doesn't mean *everything* is correct.

What I'd like to see is "tilt" the fw cocpit view down 5deg so that it looks a bit nose down in level flight.

HansKnappstick
02-13-2004, 01:34 AM
Ehem... where is this infamous bar?

MandMs
02-13-2004, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HansKnappstick:
Ehem... where is this infamous bar?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Take I-85 south or north to get off at exit 352. Turn right, go 5 blocks and turn left. Go 7 blocks and you wil see it on the right next to the big church.

HansKnappstick
02-13-2004, 06:17 AM
Ok, I took B 471 south and on the fiths exit I turned left, after 25.4 km I turned right and ended in the middle of nowhere. What am I supposed to do now? I want to see that bar?

For, if, we don't find, the next whiskey bar, I tell you we must die.

Atzebrueck
02-13-2004, 06:52 AM
http://c.f.hahne.bei.t-online.de/spit_190.jpg

Rajvosa
02-13-2004, 07:43 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Your point being...?

http://stu.wccnet.org/~ecrnovrs/inp150/finalp/sarajevo1/images/sarajevo.jpg

Steven190
02-13-2004, 08:08 AM
The comment about the cockpit from Flugwerks was just a passing comment. They have not flown the plane yet and so the view in flight has not ben established. It is a lot different than sitting on the ground looking out over the nose high attitude. I have photos of the Flugwerks 190A/N that is in Arizona. The view is a little more open than what is in the game.
My personal opinion is that there should be more line of sight than what is modeled in the game.

blabla0001
02-13-2004, 08:19 AM
http://c.f.hahne.bei.t-online.de/spit_190.jpg

This picture is too funny really.

Nobody here has an accurate view of how the gunsight view of the spitfire will look like since this spitfire "gunsight" view is created with some kind of graphics program from the screenshot pulled from the non gunsight view pit posted in the dev update, so to mirror it to a FW190 cockpit with gunsight view enabled is no real reference.

Only a guess.

ZG77_Nagual
02-13-2004, 09:18 AM
The all-round view in the 190 is excellent. I can't compare to the spit since we don't have one yet. Personally I would'nt want the gunsight changed - the plane is fabulous as is - making it any easier would take all the fun out.

JG14_Josf
02-13-2004, 09:45 AM
Maybe Oleg can put a difficulty switch on his new sim:

FW190 obstructed forward view on/off

That way those who enjoy the error can keep it.


I wonder how much experience the Flugwerk guy has in flying combat, or in simulating combat flight?



Wings of the Luftwaffe

Foreword
page V

Eric Brown:

"I was to be doubly fortunate-both to have the experience of aerial combat and to survive it."


page 81

"The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, was somewhat better than that of the Spitfire owing to the nose-down attitude of the Fw 190 in flight.



If Oleg does model the Spitfire with a somewhat better sighting view than the FW190 then his error with the FW190 sight view will be confirmed as an error. In other words Oleg will admit to his error. He will have fixed the error with the Spit which is a good thing.

Perhaps he thinks the FW190 should be handicaped for game balance.

ajafoofoo
02-13-2004, 08:10 PM
Eric Brown, that's what I was trying to remember.

That the contradiction I don't get. If the spitfire in game has better view below gunsite (and from pics it looks like it does)and Oleg accepts the spitfire cockpit as accurate, then he is basically saying the Eric Brown account has no merit at all with respect to the pilot view.

Not that I want the spitfire cockpit rejected, hell no, spitfire is my favorite plane of the war period. It's just the in game version has a serious conflict with that Eric Brown account and other evidence.

zugfuhrer
02-14-2004, 05:15 AM
To bad there are to little in IL2/FB that are historically correct, and most of the advantage faults are not at LW planes.