PDA

View Full Version : Oleg Madox Poll: Fw 190 forward view



Hristo_
02-29-2004, 11:35 PM

Hristo_
02-29-2004, 11:35 PM

clint-ruin
02-29-2004, 11:51 PM
New here, huh?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

BuzzU
03-01-2004, 01:20 AM
Very new.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg

waterinthefuel
03-01-2004, 02:00 AM
I vote that he do a search of past posts.

This isn't even a dead horse, this is a rotting one....

http://www.nissanusa.com/m/static/i/tnav_logo_shift.gif

Charos
03-01-2004, 02:03 AM
Not at all -- we put it in Formaldahyde put some Nice wheels on it and a BMW801 - Its going faster than ever.

CHDT
03-01-2004, 02:26 AM
I don't think that this kind of poll is really useful.

People who fear the 190 would vote "correct" anyway, just the same way like people who fly the 190 would vote "uncorrect".

Objectivity is a so rare quality these days http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,

WUAF_Badsight
03-01-2004, 02:40 AM
i dont fly the FW-190

i dont think it has been given a fair deal for gameplay

seriously its cockpit should have been moddeled slighly different

Oleg_Maddox
03-01-2004, 02:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
Poll Question:
In the interest of realism, please vote in this poll so that the 1C crew may be inspired to take another look at the Fw 190 forward view to correct it. Bump often please.

http://www.nostalgija.com/estrada/nives/01.jpg

The Fw 190 forward view is:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry to tell you, but even in BoB add-ons where we will expecting FW-190A-1-A3, the forward view will be according blueprints and camera view in 3D engine.

Will you make Poll or not. It doesn't matter

What you ask - to make not according blueprints. What measn incorect.

I will not visit this topic anymore.

CHDT
03-01-2004, 03:56 AM
3d modeling of the 190 cockpit is obviously correct.

Wouldn'it be just possible to put the virtual camera a little higher and more to the front?

In fact, I suspect that this is the lateral translation of the gunisght view which produces some kind of distorsion making the accuraltely modeling canopy frames looking bigger.

Cheers,

clint-ruin
03-01-2004, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHDT:
3d modeling of the 190 cockpit is obviously correct.

Wouldn'it be just possible to put the virtual camera a little higher and more to the front?

In fact, I suspect that this is the lateral translation of the gunisght view which produces some kind of distorsion making the accuraltely modeling canopy frames looking bigger.

Cheers,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg has said in the past that moving the bar or moving the viewpoint up would simply replace seeing the 'bar' with seeing the nose and MGs - in total giving you less actual visible area out of the front panel. Some photos and videos of real FW190 pits seem to support this pretty well, others less so.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

CHDT
03-01-2004, 04:21 AM
Yes, I agree, it's a real dead horse. And the 190 cockpit is managable for flying, just hope that the muzzle flashes will be toned down.

Cheers,

Recon_609IAP
03-01-2004, 06:00 AM
Are we voting for the forward view of that girl or am I missing something?

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem
http://www.jarsofclay.com/

MandMs
03-01-2004, 06:39 AM
So still we get incorrect pilot view, not just in the Fw, which is handycapped by this, but in other a/c. So http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif.

The Ta has its Revi mounted higher. Why can't the Fw have its Revi in the proper position?

The pilot's view should be modelled with the outside of the armour glass as the reference point.



I eat the red ones last.

Oleg_Maddox
03-01-2004, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
So still we get incorrect pilot view, not just in the Fw, which is handycapped by this, but in other a/c. So http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif.

The Ta has its Revi mounted higher. Why can't the Fw have its Revi in the proper position?

The pilot's view should be modelled with the outside of the armour glass as the reference point.



I eat the red ones last.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry about your opinion.
In TA it was higher historically http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
There were a lot of changes and it isn't possible to name FW-190 already. Pilots seat was several cm higher (including +/- ajustments)

widgeon
03-01-2004, 07:16 AM
I completely defer to Oleg's judgement, but if I may suggest in the next sim considering the view effects caused by refraction.

This should be done for all cockpits. Refraction had a very important impact on view, greatest in planes with the most acute angle to the armored glass. I understand that cockpits faithfully reproduced from blueprints will not reflect the above. Also modeling the dynamic effects of refraction would not be practical.

Therefore one would need to calculate the effects on framing due to refraction and model this in to the view.

I'm not a 190 whiner. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IWidgeon

jurinko
03-01-2004, 07:21 AM
http://www.nostalgija.com/estrada/nives/05.jpg

but I insist that the missing refraction prevents us to see more here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

----------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

Oleg_Maddox
03-01-2004, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
http://www.nostalgija.com/estrada/nives/05.jpg

but I insist that the missing refraction prevents us to see more here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

----------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really no.

ElfunkoI
03-01-2004, 07:22 AM
Her face looks photoshopped on, but her body rocks. Kidna reminds me of those two hotties Oleg had a while back for a photoshoot.

"A6?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Will be A6!"

MandMs
03-01-2004, 07:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by widgeon:
I completely defer to Oleg's judgement, but if I may suggest in the next sim considering the view effects caused by refraction.

This should be done for all cockpits. Refraction had a very important impact on view, greatest in planes with the most acute angle to the armored glass. I understand that cockpits faithfully reproduced from blueprints will not reflect the above. Also modeling the dynamic effects of refraction would not be practical.

Therefore one would need to calculate the effects on framing due to refraction and model this in to the view.

I'm not a 190 whiner. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IWidgeon<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is why I said the pilot's view should be referenced to the outside of the armour glass, and for all a/c.


Oleg, I would like to see proof that the seat was mounted higher. I do not see any seat height change in these drawings for a D, C and H.

http://www.aviacherteg.narod.ru/avia/Drawings/WWII/WWII_LWF/FW190/Fw190D_ML/57.jpg



I eat the red ones last.

Hristo_
03-01-2004, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElfunkoI:
Her face looks photoshopped on, but her body rocks. Kidna reminds me of those two hotties Oleg had a while back for a photoshoot.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No way she's photoshopped. Those photos were taken when she was 17. Now she's about 25. At that time photographers rarely used retouching techniques here.

As for Fw 190, here's another proof it should change:
http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/a8.jpg

[This message was edited by Hristo_ on Mon March 01 2004 at 09:10 AM.]

Bogun
03-01-2004, 10:54 AM
http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/a8.jpg

Now, this picture is definite puff that Fw-190 is grossly overmodeled... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Regards,

http://bogun.freeservers.com/609_bogun.jpg
"The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of those types obviously exceeded all Bf109 variants in performance, including the 'K'. The Mustang was unmatched in altitude performance, while the Yak-9U was champion in rate of climb and maneuverability."

- Walter Wolfrum (137 victories)

BBB_Hyperion
03-01-2004, 12:03 PM
Like the new Strategie for the 190 View .)

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Here are the main old topics under discussion must now be translated to new presentation system.

Here are some refraction situations.
Goes for all armored glas Planes.
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/refraction/refraction.html

Also this effect might be small on our display around 2 to 3 cm viewshift are not that much pixels on screen.

It would be more intresting to see why in British FW evaluation report from 09.08.1942 it is claimed that the 5 degrees downward view described there comes alone from the attitude of the FW which is nose down(When sitting comfortable). The Nose down effect is also in a US report. But not in 1 of these we can find a description on the variations of this effect at given speeds. When its a myth why its mentioned at all ?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

P.S. Still happy with this Sim http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regards,
Hyperion

SeaFireLIV
03-01-2004, 01:40 PM
hmmm, even though this FW view thing tires me,,, I also like this new strategy! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

Willey
03-01-2004, 02:00 PM
The cockpits are perfect IMHO. But some physical factors are not given, therefore the *view* is wrong. There are 2 factors. 1 is the refraction of that armor glass. The other is the pilot's head. It can't move. A pilot can raise his eyes by ~10cm already by just putting his head back. As if he would look up to the sun, but the eyes focussed to the front instead of up. That can do pretty much difference, but it must be simulated. As for the view point we have right now, nothing is wrong.

BTW the La-7 is also one of these planes. It has worse sight than La-5FN ingame, because of the different gunsight. IRL you could look past the gunsight, and then you have a better sight.

I think BoB will feature much better views, just because they can make it better then.

Bearcat99
03-01-2004, 02:15 PM
http://www.sdplastics.com/dedhorse.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

boohaa
03-01-2004, 05:02 PM
Oh my freaking god ...dont you guys see where this is headed?????Come on the last time Oleg had this FW190 debate he stopped responding for months on end.And now here we are March/1 and its starting again.

Do you guys know what the defenition of insanity is????Its doing the same thing over and over again with bad results.....STOP NOW

ajafoofoo
03-01-2004, 05:25 PM
Getting different bad results isn't insanity.

Getting the same exact bad result is.

BTW, is Oleg saying that if refraction was modeled in BOB it wouldn't improve the fw view?

Is this a translation problem, does "refraction" clearly translate into russian?

As far as I know, refraction would improve the view for most of the planes in IL2.

ElfunkoI
03-01-2004, 07:45 PM
That 190's cannon is old and rusted where as my cannon is not. Also, I think my cannon is 30mm where that might be 20mm. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That chick just doesn't do it for me. Its really because I am 18, and I did not have to expierence the 80's. Thank god. What crappy clothes, styles, hair, and even looking women. Sure they are hot, but the hair sucks, and so does the cocaine addiction. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The photographer that chooses shots where the lighting makes the head look another skin tone and thus not part of her body is a crappy photographer. But, since its german, I can only expect the oddities. They are into the wierdest porn. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"A6?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Will be A6!"

rbstr44
03-01-2004, 08:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
[ellided]
Here are some refraction situations.
Goes for all armored glas Planes.
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/refraction/refraction.html
[ellided]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey Hyperion, thanks for pointing out that website. Very good info. S!

I think this particular example on that website is the one that is most applicable to the windscreen glass refraction discussion:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>DISPLACEMENT THROUGH A SLAB OF GLASS
Http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/refraction/displacementcolorthreebeams.jpg
Entering and exiting rays are displaced from each other, but parallel.
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/refraction/displacementthroughaslab.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All in all, the pilot has the same view of the space ahead of the plane just a few mm lower.

I think some of the other view problems that people have are related to projecting 3D model cockpits onto a 2D/flat medium--a poor substitute for the views in the real thing, but it is the cheapest method using the mass-market, consumer technology most of us have at the moment.

I am not sure that a poll is the best way to sort this all out. I would never want to fly a sim designed by a committee.TM http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

P.S. Hristo, thanks for giving us a new appreciation of the tantalizing beauty of the 190, nonetheless. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif S!

[EDIT1: HTML does not work quite the same as in the old forums http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ]
[EDIT 2: Thanks clint. I am giving up on HTML in this post! ]

[This message was edited by rbstr44 on Mon March 01 2004 at 07:57 PM.]

[This message was edited by rbstr44 on Mon March 01 2004 at 07:59 PM.]

clint-ruin
03-01-2004, 08:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ajafoofoo:
Getting different bad results isn't insanity.

Getting the same exact bad result is.

BTW, is Oleg saying that if refraction was modeled in BOB it wouldn't improve the fw view?

Is this a translation problem, does "refraction" clearly translate into russian?

As far as I know, refraction would improve the view for most of the planes in IL2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently, Oleg used to work with optics systems, so I assume he knows what it means. Be grateful that we have nice touches in FB like lens flare not kicking in on the 'pilots' eyes in the cockpit and only showing up in external 'camera' views :&gt;

The refraction issue is .. well, interesting, I don't know how much of a difference people would expect it to make. Surely there must be some mention of it in the FW technical manuals for the FW190 series, either for pilot training or gun calibration issues, that people could put up to support it as a theory. So far all I've seen on it is google-trained physicists massaging the numbers til they get a good view out of the front panel, hehe.

I guess we'll just have to see what shows up out of the front glass in BOB when it comes.

Seriously guys - these polls were a silly idea in the first place and it has now been said directly that they don't matter and won't change a thing. I know it's a fun ride to bounce up and down on but I think it's just likely to make Oleg piss off out of the forums again.

Much better to practice use of 'the force' to see under the nose than bug Oleg at this point.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

PS rbstr44 - you want to use UBB codes ( square brakets - [ img ] [ / img ] without spaces for picture inserts, [ b ] for bold, [ i ] for italics, bla bla).

ASH at S-MART
03-01-2004, 09:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
Poll Question:
In the interest of realism, please vote in this poll so that the 1C crew may be inspired to take another look at the Fw 190 forward view to correct it. Bump often please.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/newbie2.jpg

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Hristo_
03-01-2004, 11:15 PM
So far nobody got it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(...should be more obvious next time...)

check out this thread

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=308108242

http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

chris455
03-01-2004, 11:18 PM
I knew it was you Hristos http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

Red_Storm
03-02-2004, 07:37 AM
I'm a full time Focke-Wulf Dora driver, but I voted the view is correct. I don't want the view to be better, as I don't want the FW to be just any man's plane, not a plane the first newbie can just jump into and fly like the next ace. The forward view is INHO realistic and gives the FW a certain extra bit a flair. I love the look of its dashboard panel. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif