PDA

View Full Version : The Final Proof that the FB190 Bar is WRONG:



TheRealMatrix
03-28-2004, 09:43 AM
Everybody know's ERIC BOWNS report about the Fw190.

He has flown and tested both Spitfire and Fw190 intensively.

Eric Brown stated that the in-flight view of the Fw190 forward down was good, and "about half-ring better than that of a Spitfire".

Now let FB Pictures speak:


http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/spit_vs_fw_revi_0_ed.jpg
Revi View matched



http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/spit_vs_fw_revi_1_ed.jpg
Revi View Split


In the no-Revi View, the difference is even more dramatic:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/spit_vs_fw_1_ed.jpg
No-Revi View matched


http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/spit_vs_fw_2_ed.jpg
No-Revi View split



We all agree that view modelled in FB 2.0 shows the Spitfire Cockpit with much better deflection capability than the Fw190.

-contrary to reality.

TheRealMatrix
03-28-2004, 09:43 AM
Everybody know's ERIC BOWNS report about the Fw190.

He has flown and tested both Spitfire and Fw190 intensively.

Eric Brown stated that the in-flight view of the Fw190 forward down was good, and "about half-ring better than that of a Spitfire".

Now let FB Pictures speak:


http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/spit_vs_fw_revi_0_ed.jpg
Revi View matched



http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/spit_vs_fw_revi_1_ed.jpg
Revi View Split


In the no-Revi View, the difference is even more dramatic:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/spit_vs_fw_1_ed.jpg
No-Revi View matched


http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/spit_vs_fw_2_ed.jpg
No-Revi View split



We all agree that view modelled in FB 2.0 shows the Spitfire Cockpit with much better deflection capability than the Fw190.

-contrary to reality.

VW-IceFire
03-28-2004, 09:58 AM
And its probably because of the thick glass and the lack of refraction modeled. I also wonder if our FW190 pilot is short http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I've learned to lead shoot at targets I can't see...good thing the FW190 has ammo capacity.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

JAS_Gripen
03-28-2004, 09:58 AM
Whether 190 forward view it is correct or wrong hasn't really been an issue for along time aften a ton of evidence was posted to question a single badly restored museum example 1C used as template.

Nevertheless, the 190 pit will not change as the man has made up his mind.

Still, I guess you are free to try where others failed...

robban75
03-28-2004, 10:00 AM
You're a brave brave man Matrix! I wish you luck!

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Fehler
03-28-2004, 10:30 AM
Well, here we go again, huh?

We all know what you are trying to say, and well... we all agree with it. Oleg isnt going to change it, so why bang your head against the wall?

Is it the bar or the revi that are wrong? Who knows, and well Im at the point that I just dont care. This is a game. It's not 3 million dollar NASA flight software. The 190 cockpit is rich in detail, and wonderfully crafted. I feel at "Home" in it more than any other cockpit in the game.

Do we really want to start a thread that competes with that fifty caliber thread going on in here? Revisiting this issue will only cause frustration and discontent.

Perhaps it is better to leave this horse dead and unkicked..

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

Chuck_Older
03-28-2004, 10:34 AM
OK


HOLD IT RIGHT THERE


Everyone, please read this:

This debate has been re-hased and done so many times, that Oleg has decreed that this FW-190 view is NOT CHANGING.

Matrix, I can only assume that you haven't been around the boards long enough to know this. My current username hasn't been around long enough, but I was here as BBB462CID a long time ago (no I wasn't banned http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif )

Stirring this pot will only have one effect- gauranteeing that it will never, ever, ever be changed. Think I'm kidding? oleg might change his mind on this issue, but NOT if we keep turning this thorn in his side every few weeks.

You can post as many pics as you like, show refraction effects, and diagrams up the yingyang, and it will have abo****ely zero effect on the FW-190.

The complainers complained too loudly and too often before. Don't seal the cofin with constant pursuit of this Grail! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif I'd like to think we have some chance of getting this fixed. This is not the way to do it.

(also wondering what the Spit cockpit has to do with the accuracy of a FW cockpit. You are assuming that the gunsights are designed to be precisely in the same position relative to the pilot in both aircraft, matrix. No, I don't want to debate it)
*****************************
Wave bub-bub-bub-bye to the boss, it's your profit, it's his loss~ Clash

JG14_Josf
03-28-2004, 11:40 AM
Matrix,

Thanks for the post!

That is a proffesional job and it clearly shows an error.

Here is a quote from the book "Focke Wulf Fw 190 in Combat"

page 44
"The sighting view, wehen sitting comfortably in the normal position, is about half a ring [of deflection] better than that from a Spitfire. The view downwards from the centre of the sight graticule of the edge of the reflector plate holder is about 5 degrees. This view is not obtained by elevating the guns (and consequently the sight) relative to the line of flight, but is entierly due to the attitude of the aircraft in flight, which is nose down."

So where is the error?

Is the error in the game or is the error in the report made by the British Fighter pilots during the war when they flew combat test trials with a capture Fw 190A-3?

I would rather see the truth and deal with it then make any effort to censor it.

Thanks again Matrix that is a very well done presentation.

I hope the next best Combat flight sim is more accurate in this regard, or I hope someone can explain why those British fighter pilots lied when the wrote that comparison of sighting views.

JG7_Rall
03-28-2004, 11:45 AM
S!

Awesome job with the pictures and stuff..too bad its going to be ignored. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Oh well...I'll still fly it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/Typhoon_Target_resized_copy.jpg
"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
When in doubt, climb!

crazyivan1970
03-28-2004, 01:36 PM
Allright, i`ll reopen it...but please stay on topic and don`t jump into biased crap. Inappropriate messages will be deleted without warnings.

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

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

crazyivan1970
03-28-2004, 01:40 PM
Have fun with it

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

PraetorHonoris
03-28-2004, 02:23 PM
Thanks, good decision.
On the other hand: who cares, Oleg won't change anything, and if he does, you won't see anything due to the muzzle flashes.

LEXX_Luthor
03-28-2004, 02:46 PM
Never thought of that, THE BAR protects the pilot and simmer eyes from blinding flash.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"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
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Jazz-Man
03-28-2004, 03:55 PM
Yes Eric Brown say that about the FW and Spitfire IN FLIGHT. And yet, you've chosen to show the aircraft on the ground...

How about you line up the cockpit padding under the gunsight with the aircraft LEVEL as opposed to on the runway where the FW-190 is actually taller then the spitfire and compare the views. The FW-190 had a notoriously poor view on the runway.

Now take a look at the views.

EDIT: Now that I look at the two cockpits, more closely, aren't they about 1/2 of a sight ring different? Look at the sight ring in both aircraft, and then compare the radius of the ring to the different between the FW-190 and Spitfire MkV.... So what you've done is prove that everything is fine with the FW-190. Thank you!

S!
William "Jazz-Man" Katz
Squadron Batman
RAF No.74 Squadron
www.raf74.com (http://www.raf74.com)
http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/images/signature.jpg

609IAP_Recon
03-28-2004, 04:17 PM
naw, not biased - Oleg likes this 190.

I think pilot is simply sitting too low in the cockpit.

I'm really surprised Oleg hasn't addressed this - due to desire to have such excellent cockpits.

Salute!

JG50_Recon

----
http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com

ZG77_Nagual
03-28-2004, 04:39 PM
I think it's possible the pilot is sitting a bit too low.
I also think it's possible Brown was referring to the way the cockpit is cut away to the front/side - similar to the p51 - which greatly enhances forward view.

On the bias issue - I presume you mean vvs bias - in which case I can only ask - have you flown a 109k4 lately? How about a Ki84 or p39 or p63?

crazyivan1970
03-28-2004, 04:54 PM
I thought i specifically asked to drop this bias accusation. Stiglr don`t push my buttons please... Do you want this thread to stay or not?

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

BBB_Hyperion
03-28-2004, 05:24 PM
I dont c any vital Data represented here as this is the View from the Game. Is the view compareable at all ? Maybe FW Cockpit is wider therefore its wide view position is a little more back than in the Spit to give better overview.

What is needed is a Real Fw190(no rebuild for several reasons) with correct Armored Glass Size correct Revi (Position) correct Pilot position etc.

And some Measurement instruments to get correct refraction index as well the correct angle of the downward view what is about 2,5 to 3 degrees. The 5 degrees come from Nose Down attitude as it is stated in the report quoted above. There are even angles for deflection shooting at different target speeds to calculate the view angle. I think this measurement is while aiming with the revi else it wouldnt make sense to give view as 1/2 ring better as spitfire. The Pilot position in FB may also be to check as on the ground you tend to lean back while in air you sitting on it.

A laser mounted at the Revi aiming at the lowest position that gets clear of the engine hood can be used to find the correct angle of view insight the Plane. Also you can find the angle between bar start and bar end with it what is seen by the Pilot not in Blue Print. A external position needs to be used to verify the orientation of the Laser itself.

Would you really spend at least 1 day without preparation time counted to find it out ?

Equipment needed for that is quite expensive.

What can be archieved with it ? a change of the view i doubt .) Maybe in the next Sim with true 3d representation not projected to 2d and the ability to move the head around.

Regards,
Hyperion

Tvrdi
03-28-2004, 05:32 PM
ZG_Nagual wrote: "I think pilot is simply sitting too low in the cockpit"...ur right, and the cockpit of the FW190 is modeled this way on purpose...why? so that we in FW190 could fight with poor deflection aiming capability...and yes Im in VVS squad and love the game and thats why im posting this....Its a russian game so say thanks to Oleg cause it is a great game but its a russian one..so lets assume LW planes are for IL2 veterans for their new challenge...I hope I didnt insult anyone

privet

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/gnomisa-zerome2.jpg

crazyivan1970
03-28-2004, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tvrdi:
ZG_Nagual wrote: "I think pilot is simply sitting too low in the cockpit"...ur right, and the cockpit of the FW190 is modeled this way on purpose...why? so that we in FW190 could fight with poor deflection aiming capability...and yes Im in VVS squad and love the game and thats why im posting this....Its a russian game so say thanks to Oleg cause it is a great game but its a russian one..so lets assume LW planes are for IL2 veterans for their new challenge...I hope I didnt insult anyone

privet
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So...all you said: it`s all biased, but put it down in the nice way... amazing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

LEXX_Luthor
03-28-2004, 05:39 PM
To make a Fw190 gunsight thread worthy of Oleg
looking at lasting 20+ pages, we need to stop
making pics so large nobody can read this and
post links to pics instead.

The good thing is you can open all the pics in
New Windows and compare them side by side.

One would think computer flight simmers
advertising themselves as smart enough to
challenge Oleg would worry about the size of
pics ruining their whole argument. Perhaps the
first assumption here is wrong.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"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
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Jazz-Man
03-28-2004, 06:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I thought i specifically asked to drop this bias accusation. Stiglr don`t push my buttons please... Do you want this thread to stay or not?

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

S! Ivan, you've got much more restraint than I've got mate, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Why am I the only one so far that's noticed that the guy is using images of the FW-190 and Spitfire MkV ON THE GROUND to make comparisons based on a quote by Brown related to those aircraft IN THE AIR?

And am I just totally off, or are the views in those aircraft, by just those images which he has posted, almost exactly 1/2 a sight ring difference, with the Spitfire having the advantage?

Maybe the thread topic should be edited to read "The Final Proof that the FW190 Bar is RIGHT:" instead http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

S!
William "Jazz-Man" Katz
Squadron Batman
RAF No.74 Squadron
www.raf74.com (http://www.raf74.com)
http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/images/signature.jpg

Wallstein
03-28-2004, 06:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
OK


_HOLD IT RIGHT THERE_

T H A N K Y O U C h u c k _ O l d e r

We HAVE TO KEEP IN OUR MINDS, that the overall quality of this game is good, in many aspects even astonishing. It is such a good game that it provokes some of us to demand absolute perfection. (A worse game wouldnÔ┬┤t just do that!)Yet, one is allowed to demand perfection, but then, we have to remember the costs, expenditures which the developer simply has to cover - cover how? By money. WhoÔ┬┤s money? The customerÔ┬┤s money!

I have bought all the 3 CD:s IL-2,FB and Ace Pack. I have enjoyed this game for... for two years! What else could I have bought with that money? I could have payed for one good dinner or two less inexpensive dinners in an ordinary restaurant with my wife! Or I could have bought one third of a bicycle to replace my current one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif What I`m trying to say is that there are chiep things and then there are inexpensive things. This IL-2 is high quality production and it costs ridiculously little. That kind of things do not exist too many---IÔ┬┤m not possible alone with my feelings for this game!

We have been lucky! Oleg has turned out to be more generous and sometimes even charitable conscerning our neverending appeals, than one could expect according to some of the bitter writings here around. And more than anything, Oleg has sold us a marvellous game and given us a bonus there within, an atmosphere of gaming never seen or felt before http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

It is, Chuck_Older, just the right thing to do when you advice people to stop whyning. And more; it is always better to chat about the exciting and stimulating things rather than others. For the reason why we all play this game and read this Webb-page is the simple desire to have good time with pals all over the world.

And one word about the cockpits; There are and there will remain directions where one simply can never see unless turning the plane here and there. And the opponent "enjoys" the same kind of a restriction (been there done that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif). And if we one day get improved cockpit for the Focke Wulf -series, then, so be it! I`ll remain happy with or without and so does most of the gamers - I suppose.

Maybe I should have posted this writing to someone else, but this time you, Chuck_Older, happen to be the receiver http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Have good flights!



*****************************
Wave bub-bub-bub-bye to the boss, it's your profit, it's his loss~ Clash<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HQ1
03-28-2004, 06:36 PM
realmatrix:
sorry i can not see the pictures which you posted

plumps_
03-28-2004, 08:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jazz-Man:
Yes Eric Brown say that about the FW and Spitfire IN FLIGHT. And yet, you've chosen to show the aircraft on the ground...

How about you line up the cockpit padding under the gunsight with the aircraft LEVEL as opposed to on the runway where the FW-190 is actually taller then the spitfire and compare the views. The FW-190 had a notoriously poor view on the runway.

Now take a look at the views.

EDIT: Now that I look at the two cockpits, more closely, aren't they about 1/2 of a sight ring different? Look at the sight ring in both aircraft, and then compare the radius of the ring to the different between the FW-190 and Spitfire MkV.... So what you've done is prove that everything is fine with the FW-190. Thank you!

S!
William "Jazz-Man" Katz
Squadron Batman
RAF No.74 Squadron
http://www.raf74.com
http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/images/signature.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here we have some real bias (his signature is revealing): A Spit jock trying to defend his advantage with some totally irrelevant comments.

The views are centred to the gun sight and will still be exactly the same when the aircraft are flying. All that changes is the aircraft's position relatively to the ground, not the view relatively to the aircraft's nose; the latter is what impedes deflection shooting in the Fw-190. But even if your assumption was relevant it would still be wrong -- the view on the runway from the Spitfire is just as bad as from the FW, at least in AEP.

And I really wonder where in these pictures you see that the view is in accordance with Eric Brown's observations.

plumps_
03-28-2004, 08:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jazz-Man:
And am I just totally off, or are the views in those aircraft, by just those images which he has posted, almost exactly 1/2 a sight ring difference, with the Spitfire having the advantage?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, you're not off with that observation, you're off with the conclusion you draw. According to Eric Brown the FW-190 should have the advantage, not the Spitfire! That's what this thread is about...

-----------------------------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)

JG14_Josf
03-28-2004, 09:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why am I the only one so far that's noticed that the guy is using images of the FW-190 and Spitfire MkV ON THE GROUND to make comparisons based on a quote by Brown related to those aircraft IN THE AIR? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IL2, the computer game, automatically centers the pilots perspective to look through the gunsight and this is done even when the plane is on the ground.

Shift F1 is the command for this automatic gunsight view.

In reality the pilot must possition his head in line with the light being projected from the reflector sight. If the pilot does not do this alignment of eyes and reflected gunsight projection then he will not see the reflected reticle image and he will not be able to see where the bullets are aimed. IL2/FB moves the pilots head into that gunsight possition with the press of a key.

Notice the following quote taken from the book FW 190 by Alfred Price:

This is a description of the Fw 190A-3's sighting view.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, is about half a ring [of deflection] better than that from a Spitfire. The view downwards from the centre of the sight graticule of the edge of the reflector plate holder is about 5 degrees. This view is not obtained by elevating the guns (and consequently the sight) relative to the line of flight, but is entierly due to the attitude of the aircraft in flight, which is nose down <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Language can sometimes be difficult to understand but it appears as if that quote taken from a 1942 combat test evaluation report is clear and precise.

The Fw 190 according to that British pilot had a better sighting view than the Spitfire.

That British pilot also states that the reason the Fw has a better sighting view was specifically not due to elevating the guns and of course the sight and of course then the pilots head when looking through the sight.
The reason, states the report, the Fw 190 has a better gunsight view is because the Fw190 they captured and flew in 1942 against their own Spitfires was due to the Fw190 flying nose down.

So the question then is not if those British Pilots consider the Fw190 to have a better gun sight view, the question is if they are wrong in their specific claim that the Fw 190 did have a better gun sight view.

So if anyone finds reason to believe that IL2 models the gun sight view correctly they are directly contradicting the findings of British Pilots who flew both the Spitfire and the Fw190 during the War.

If this report is refuted with specific contradictory evidence that is one thing, but to discard the report out of hand simply because it does not fit into one's opinion is what?

Blind faith, presumtuous, arrogance, I really don't understand, please clue me in.

E_Temperament
03-28-2004, 10:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why am I the only one so far that's noticed that the guy is using images of the FW-190 and Spitfire MkV ON THE GROUND to make comparisons based on a quote by Brown related to those aircraft IN THE AIR? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IL2, the computer game, automatically centers the pilots perspective to look through the gunsight and this is done even when the plane is on the ground.

Shift F1 is the command for this automatic gunsight view.

In reality the pilot must possition his head in line with the light being projected from the reflector sight. If the pilot does not do this alignment of eyes and reflected gunsight projection then he will not see the reflected reticle image and he will not be able to see where the bullets are aimed. IL2/FB moves the pilots head into that gunsight possition with the press of a key.

Notice the following quote taken from the book FW 190 by Alfred Price:

This is a description of the Fw 190A-3's sighting view.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, is about half a ring [of deflection] better than that from a Spitfire. The view downwards from the centre of the sight graticule of the edge of the reflector plate holder is about 5 degrees. This view is not obtained by elevating the guns (and consequently the sight) relative to the line of flight, but is entierly due to the attitude of the aircraft in flight, which is nose down <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Language can sometimes be difficult to understand but it appears as if that quote taken from a 1942 combat test evaluation report is clear and precise.

The Fw 190 according to that British pilot had a better sighting view than the Spitfire.

That British pilot also states that the reason the Fw has a better sighting view was specifically not due to elevating the guns and of course the sight and of course then the pilots head when looking through the sight.
The reason, states the report, the Fw 190 has a better gunsight view is because the Fw190 they captured and flew in 1942 against their own Spitfires was due to the Fw190 flying nose down.

So the question then is not if those British Pilots consider the Fw190 to have a better gun sight view, the question is if they are wrong in their specific claim that the Fw 190 did have a better gun sight view.

So if anyone finds reason to believe that IL2 models the gun sight view correctly they are directly contradicting the findings of British Pilots who flew both the Spitfire and the Fw190 during the War.

If this report is refuted with specific contradictory evidence that is one thing, but to discard the report out of hand simply because it does not fit into one's opinion is what?

Blind faith, presumtuous, arrogance, I really don't understand, please clue me in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Articulately written, thanks for clearing up the bias and the BS, assuming of course that the quote from the book isn't BS. If the quote from the book is BS, then, "HAVE MERCY ON MY SOUL MASTER, SHOW A LITTLE MERRRZZZY".

E_Temperament
03-28-2004, 10:17 PM
For the Fw190 to fly nose down, the tailplane must have had positive angle of attack in relation to the datum line, yes or no?

Fehler
03-28-2004, 10:45 PM
OK, I'll bite... God have mercy on my soul...

Has anyone flown the 190 and got it perfectly level, froze the game and taken a screen shot of the exterior of the plane? Does it actually fly nose down in the game? The 190 would be easy to test. It has an artificial horizon and a climb meter so you can zero out the flight angle perfectly. I am at work, so I cant test this.

Now, if you are able to determine that the plane does NOT fly nose down, then fly her nose down and fire the guns, freeze it and take another exterior shot. If it does not fly nose down, your bullets will be going down and not level from the muzzle. Well, here is my point...

If you can get her to the proper historical angle of flight, the bullets would have to fire level for the revi to work. But in the game, it wont work, assuming that it does NOT fly nose down. So then one could conclude that the crosshairs should be raised along with the bullets... walaa, no more bar to impede your view.

I must say though that I dont think anything will be done about this. I am just guessing here but, people were quite rude to Oleg when the issue was first brought up. I think I would be inclined to stick my nose up in the air after reading some of the remarks from the original thread.

This may be a classic example of "You reap what you sow."

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

ajafoofoo
03-28-2004, 11:26 PM
Lol Jazzman, you got it backwards.

The fw190 is supposed to have half ring better NOT the spitfire.

JG14_Josf
03-28-2004, 11:33 PM
It would solve a lot of problems if someone can show how the British combat evaluation of the captured Fw 190A 3 is a bogus document.

I couldn't find a reference to Captain Eric Brown in Alfred Prices book.

In Eric Browns book he writes:

"...the foward view was still rather better than was offered by the Bf 109, the Spitfire or the Mustang."

Eric Brown's comments above pertain to an Fw 190A-4/U8 jabo

The comments in Alfred Price's book pertain to an Fw 190A-3.

Photo of the document in question (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_a_1.jpg)

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Sun March 28 2004 at 10:45 PM.]

starfighter1
03-28-2004, 11:39 PM
hi,
got this email from a restauration specialist (FW 190/+ more)who build up a 190-F:

'I know the gunsight in IL2/FB is wrong. Anyone who sat in a 190 knows this.' (here: refurnished one)
I guess meanwhile O.M.,his team and some more third party designers know this.

But it isn't only a problem in FW 190.
Also most of the other cockpit view (pilots view + hight)designs are wrong.
The main problem is the corrupt 'engine view system' in this PC-sim. A system created in the first steps for IL2-plane and a non flexible way for other planes.

I call it the 'gnomish virtual combat pilots view' the 'main bug' in the view design.
Of course: some 'overframed' cockpit struts and bars force this problems.

The only way to fix: reprogramming/recode the 'view system' in the game engine and redesign the forecast of 3Dmax figures to third party designers.(re: at netwings.org)

Some few fixes are possible as we got at Me-262 (a compromise)but not to all planes.

I guess, meanwhile the developer knows quite well the problems and the mistakes of the past.

It's up to him to create a main patch to fix the whole 'view system' in this game.

The winternight story of correct view system (at FW 190) as O.M. pointed in the past is really out.

Anyway, the developer is working at BoB and I see no reason at the moment that they change their marketing concept of pushing out some Addons (remember the FB-story) with this corrupt 'view system' to make a quick dollar.

I'm looking forward to the first pics of Bob and would like to see some progress in this field.

nevertheless a 'main patch' to this old 'view problems and design ' is overdue.

dear fans of this pc-sim. It's a combatsim and the virtual view system most important beside other features.

My two cents to this..

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

Flamin_Squirrel
03-29-2004, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"...the foward view was still rather better than was offered by the Bf 109, the Spitfire or the Mustang."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A rather damning inditement of the 190 view, since its worse than all these planes. If its something fundamentaly wrong with FB that cant really be fixed then i guess theres not much that can be done.

Having said that, although the bars presence may be realistic, the infringement of the view it creates probably isnt (if that makes sense). Perhaps we could have the bar removed if the view position cannot be changed as a solution...?

[This message was edited by Flamin_Squirrel on Mon March 29 2004 at 09:53 AM.]

faustnik
03-29-2004, 11:00 AM
This topic of conversation is pointless! We have seen all the evidence and received an official decision on the subject. The view is not changing DEAL WITH IT!

If you love the 190, why not pick an issue that is constructive. Find pictures of 190s without outer guns and no ETC rack, get data on panzerblitz rockets, check low level speeds on the A4, anything but this dead issue.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

clint-ruin
03-29-2004, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flamin_Squirrel:
Having said that, although the bars presence may be realistic, the infringement of the view it creates probably isnt (if that makes sense). Perhaps we could have the bar removed if the view position cannot be changed as a solution...?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with doing that is simply what Oleg himself said in the gigantic FW view thread.

Move the view up and you will actually see less out of the front panel.

Directly behind that 'bar' is the engine cowl and machineguns. Moving the view up will just block more of the forward view with the engine itself. "The bar" seems to be at the level of the rest of the nose - I know people like to think that there is some promised land of perfect visibility behind it, but it just doesn't look like it's there.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/fw190-a827.jpg
http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/crapview1.jpg
http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/crapview2.jpg
http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/crapview3.jpg
http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/crapview4.jpg


On one hand we have the above and on the other the photos Cirx took from the A6, which seem to show a much better view. Can't seem to reconcile the two together but I'd be interested if someone could come up with some kind of "overlay" of the two similar to what was done in the first page of the thread.

Be aware that as CrazyIvan and others have said, insulting Oleg is only likely to make him even more adamant -not- to change it.

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

IVJG51Swein
03-29-2004, 11:36 AM
Great job..Great pictures

S!
Remember there is going to be another sim or addon after BOB with the 190 in it. We can only hope that it is done correctly.
Keep it professional but don't give up guys....

Thanks for your work Matrix

IVJG51Swein
03-29-2004, 11:41 AM
Hey Clint-ruin, not to knock your photos but those are taken from a Revi 12 that was installed incorrectly. First you have an A-7,A-8 or A-9 aircraft(gun bulges that were on these models). Those aircraft had Revi 16 gunsites. There were many 190s that had re-installed gunsites done on them later in an attempt to make them look authentic. The Revi 16 should be in the bird with those photos that you posted. That means you have an incorrect gunsite and incorrect mounting. Thats why it looks as though there would be no way to utilize the gunsite. Because of this it would be improper to do a comparison with Cirx's.

BTW, there are rumors that in the future there will be another 190. Yes, some may say that these posts irritated Oleg but in reality some of the individuals who researched the issue may be helping Oleg out in the future so thats a good thing. You never know.....

[This message was edited by IVJG51Swein on Mon March 29 2004 at 10:50 AM.]

Flamin_Squirrel
03-29-2004, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Directly behind that 'bar' is the engine cowl and machineguns. Moving the view up will just block more of the forward view with the engine itself. "The bar" seems to be at the level of the rest of the nose - I know people like to think that there is some promised land of perfect visibility behind it, but it just doesn't look like it's there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah thats very true, which is why i say if there is something fundamentaly wrong with the model/head position. It that cant be rectified to give the exact realistic view, the bar should go to give a better view as a compramise.

plumps_
03-29-2004, 02:31 PM
Clintruin, the FW-190 on your first picture (http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/fw190-a827.jpg) doesn't seem to bee equipped with the original monolithic armoured glass plate.

Take a closer look at the cracks, these are only in an inner, thin plate and don't span the whole width of 50 or 60 mm.

I wouldn't use that picture in this thread as it doesn't show the refraction of the original glass pane.

-----------------------------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)

Kampagne f├╝r IL-2 1.2: I-16 - Kampf im Kaukasus (Deutsch) (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/kampagne.html)

LEXX_Luthor
03-29-2004, 02:40 PM
Yough clint, plumps made a refractive point...

According to our flight simmer Experts, the Refraction should eliminate cowl, guns, and THE BAR all at the same time.

clint~ruin:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Directly behind that 'bar' is the engine cowl and machineguns. Moving the view up will just block more of the forward view with the engine itself. "The bar" seems to be at the level of the rest of the nose - I know people like to think that there is some promised land of perfect visibility behind it, but it just doesn't look like it's there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No guns, no cowls, NO BARs http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"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
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

clint-ruin
03-29-2004, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IVJG51Swein:
Hey Clint-ruin, not to knock your photos but those are taken from a Revi 12 that was installed incorrectly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, I'm aware of that. Unfortunately, I don't know of any appropriate camera angle shots that show the correct sight. From memory Cirx couldn't find any gunsight to place in the slot on the A6 when he took those pictures, but still, he got some good shots.

As for refraction issues, I honestly don't think refraction is going to help out all that much - as well as that again, you're simply going to see more of the planes nose if the view is tilted "up" in any way.

Does anyone have Cirxs shots url handy for comparison? Wouldn't mind another look at them.

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

LEXX_Luthor
03-29-2004, 03:59 PM
clint~ruin:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As for refraction issues, I honestly don't think refraction is going to help out all that much - as well as that again, you're simply going to see more of the planes nose if the view is tilted "up" in any way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hold on clint, from my limited understanding the thick highly refractive glass slab will shift the entire front view and all external objects vertically downward the same amount. The BAR and nose of the plane will be much farther below the gunsight. Now, they say the Fw gunsight was fitted for this, and I assume other planes too.

I laughed and made fun of the Refraction idea when I first saw it posted, but *only* because it was mixed in with Whining posts like the ones claiming Fw pilots sat on parachute--until somebody posted a pic with Fw pilot climbing into/from cockpit with chute on his back--that whole episode was funny, and other silly Fw ideas too. But in the long run the Refraction idea is the only one that stood out and made sense.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"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
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

IVJG51Swein
03-29-2004, 08:17 PM
www.triplane.net (http://www.triplane.net) was Cirx's old address. Its currently under construction though.

Here are some shots form some work that we conducted on the issue. We were actually able to sit in the one without the Revi installed.

http://www.jg51.net/forums/viewthread.php?tid=1009

GvSAP_Dart
03-29-2004, 09:11 PM
(running up, breathless)

Is it full up, or can I join in?

Nothing more fun than kicking a dead horse!

THUNK THUNK

Hey, guys, when we get tired of this I think some fellows have found the gun flashes horse back a few pages.

We can go kick that one, too!

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

____________________________________
http://www.darts-page.com for more foolishness

IVJG51Swein
03-29-2004, 09:36 PM
"NUTS"

BBB_Hyperion
03-29-2004, 09:59 PM
Oh the Movie for the Pictures from the Original Author is here. http://trombke.bei.t-online.de/Fw190A-8_Cockpit_2.zip

Thx Ossi for visiting that museum in Hannover.

Oh and clint-ruin the size of the amored glass is 50 mm refraction index air is 1 glas is 1.6 propably higher for amored glass. Angle of the front Glass you can get out of the Blueprint.

Pls do your own calculation and tell us your results looking forward to it .) Of intrest is the displayed height shift when the ray exits before the reflector. That there is a problem with refraction can be seen on all planes that use amored glass at angles. 262 is a good example too. Noticeable is that the Frame is displayed as if there is no glass in. Ki84 same problem.The Revis are really high mounted for this reason. I am aware that is something for the next sim and i doubt it will be changed.

Popcorn anyone ?

Regards,
Hyperion

dahdah
03-30-2004, 03:11 AM
Is it not a problem with modelling. Something to do with there would be an open space where the frame would be - the external model and the cockpit model would not match. I wish they would find some work-around for this.

clint, with refraction, the sighting line would be raised. From drawings, this would give an 5 degree 35 minute angle to the cowl from the external point on the glass to the sighting line. The angle of the glass is 25 degrees from the horizontal, the most of any WW2 fighter, so though all a/c had a refraction, the modelling by Maddox Games of the Fw a/c hurts the pilot's view the most.

LEXX_Luthor
03-30-2004, 03:28 AM
Interesting. So Fw-190 used Refraction more than most, and so is hurt the most?


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"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
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

clint-ruin
03-30-2004, 03:30 AM
Hmm.

Well - I looked through the wikipedia pages on refraction and snells law and I am still at a loss to explain how this would actually help. Just don't seem to get it. Maybe it'll click eventually. The effect of the light appearing to move closer to the normal/shortest path - to my mind this just represents a relative distortion of what is already passing through, not some miracle glass that will somehow manage to see through a solid engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/2/28/Snell1.png

While I'm not totally stupid it sometimes takes a while for these things to click, so if someone could explain what I'm missing here I'd appreciate it :&gt;

One question that should be very, very easy to answer though:

The FW-190A8/A9ss with the extra armored glass panels and thicker forward plates ... any notes on the viewpoint changing in any of these in any way?

If the effect of these was completely un-noteworthy, is the refraction issue as big a deal as it seems?

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

LEXX_Luthor
03-30-2004, 03:35 AM
Okay, your diagram needs the other side of the glass slab. There, the light comes out parrallel to the incoming light, but shifted downwards.



................./../
................/../
....&gt;&gt;-----/../
............./.\/-----&gt;&gt; ray from target plane
............/../
....&gt;&gt;--/../
........./.\/--------&gt;&gt; ray from THE BAR
......../../

clint-ruin
03-30-2004, 03:55 AM
Thanks lexx, finally found something better that made it click :&gt;

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/figure5.gif

For some reason I was stuck on trying to work out why people were treating a flat piece of glass as though it was a curved lens but that's not actually the issue :&gt;

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

dahdah
03-30-2004, 04:03 AM
clint the glass thickness did not change, it was always 50mm.

The Fw with the extra glass was the Fw190A-8/R8 and this was added to the canopy sides.

http://home.catv.ne.jp/kk/galland/garally/48Fw190A8Dahl/48fw190a8dahl2.jpg

There was really no reason to add to the front as the 25 degree slope was like the sloped armour on a tank. Here is an article you should read. pg one of 5 pgs http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/glass1.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
03-30-2004, 04:22 AM
Right clint. Now if the Fw glass slab was mounted vertically...like a house window, or like in Ye Olde Ilya Mourometz bomber...

http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/im-original1-prev.jpg
---&gt; http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/ilyamour.html

...then the Refraction would not cause any shift in light rays coming through from directly in front. But when the Fw glass slab is steeply angled backwards with respect to the Fw front, the view in front is shifted downward uniformly. Try it with a small stack of microscope slides looking at an object in the background that extends beyond the edge of the stack. The more slides stacked and the greater the angle, the more the image is shifted. I think this is a good way to see this, don't remember if I ever tried it or not. mmmm

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"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
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

clint-ruin
03-30-2004, 04:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dahdah:
clint the glass thickness did not change, it was always 50mm.

The Fw with the extra glass was the Fw190A-8/R8 and this was added to the canopy sides.
There was really no reason to add to the front as the 25 degree slope was like the sloped armour on a tank. Here is an article you should read. pg one of 5 pgs http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/glass1.jpg<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, read that glass test stuff on Rings- site a while ago - good stuff.

A lot of references I've found mention that 30mm of additional glass was added to the "quarter panels" which I assume means the ones either side of the front plate? Would that be unnoticable as well, or are they all quoting the same [wrong] source on that?

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

clint-ruin
03-30-2004, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
...then the Refraction would not cause any shift in light rays coming through from directly in front. But when the Fw glass slab is steeply angled backwards with respect to the Fw front, the view in front is shifted downward uniformly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah. Was getting hung up on terminology - "better field of view" got me on the mistaken track of trying to interpret it as a lens providing "wider" view through the glass rather than treating it as just a straight jump/shift downwards.

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

NegativeGee
03-30-2004, 06:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Yeah, read that glass test stuff on Rings- site a while ago - good stuff.

A lot of references I've found mention that 30mm of additional glass was added to the "quarter panels" which I assume means the ones either side of the front plate? Would that be unnoticable as well, or are they all quoting the same [wrong] source on that?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

30mm of armour glass was fitted, as standard, in the quarter panels of the front canopy. I've not heard of additional armour glass being fitted there, just the 30mm side panels attached to the canopy hood on the A-8/R8, as dahdah pointed out.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Skii_
03-30-2004, 06:10 AM
Still not convinced either way.

Until someone posts a photo from a 190 cockpit with a working gunsight, taken from exactly the pilot's eye level, I'll remain firmly on the fence.

Still waiting.

http://www.skiisworld.plus.com/pilot2%20copy.jpg
XP Pro / 2200XP / Fx5950 Ultra, 1Gb Pc2700 DDR / Abit KD7A Kt400 / Carppy old case

lil_labbit
03-30-2004, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
To make a Fw190 gunsight thread worthy of Oleg
looking at lasting 20+ pages, we need to stop
making pics so large nobody can read this and
post links to pics instead.

The good thing is you can open all the pics in
New Windows and compare them side by side.

One would think computer flight simmers
advertising themselves as smart enough to
challenge Oleg would worry about the size of
pics ruining their whole argument. Perhaps the
first assumption here is wrong.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish _"Gladiator"_ listed as _J8A_ _...in Aces Expansion Pack_

_"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
:
_"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore_!_"_ ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aint no picture big enough for me !
Get a better connection LEXX http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
And if I have to click links.... hmmm

If you want to see what refraction does, these are three avi XviD codec files, they simulate (ray-traced in trueSpace 3.1 - free at www.download.com (http://www.download.com)) a glass plate going from upright position to a 28 degree angle, the thickness of the glass gets increasingly thicker for each of the clips:

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/fw190Thin.avi
http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/fw190Thick.avi
http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/fw190Thicker.avi

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/lilseesya.jpg
Night is better than Day

[This message was edited by lil_labbit on Tue March 30 2004 at 07:31 AM.]

lil_labbit
03-30-2004, 07:34 PM
hehe dead link good !
cause its just bull realy
view is what it is and wont change.....
anyway i want a carrier more http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

and Thunak (whatever) .uk showed a carrier @ a pacific map....... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ok its coming http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/lilseesya.jpg
Night is better than Day

BBB_Hyperion
03-30-2004, 09:59 PM
Looked up what was used as additional armor.

R├╝stsatz R7 Sturmj├┬Ąger additional armor to normal armor.

internal Armor for MG131 bay 4 mm lower 15 mm rear
external side fuselage plates 5 mm
side canopy and windshield quarterpanel armored glass 30 mm and windshield 50 mm.

R├╝stsatz R8(2 Mk108) (with R7)
4 mm Armor Plate for Mk108

Thats additional to standard amored glass. It was called "Scheuklappen" cause the view was very obscured and Pilots didnt like that.

When you look at photos of these you will see
that mg131 is mostly removed and that only part of the armored glass has been attached cause the
extra weight made this planes like sitting ducks to fighters and the view was restricted.

Regards,
Hyperion

clint-ruin
03-30-2004, 10:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Looked up what was used as additional armor.

R├╝stsatz R7 Sturmj├┬Ąger additional armor to normal armor.

internal Armor for MG131 bay 4 mm lower 15 mm rear
external side fuselage plates 5 mm
side canopy and windshield quarterpanel armored glass 30 mm and windshield 50 mm.

R├╝stsatz R8(2 Mk108) (with R7)
4 mm Armor Plate for Mk108

Thats additional to standard amored glass. It was called "Scheuklappen" cause the view was very obscured and Pilots didnt like that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A couple of links I've found about it said that what they really hated was the "blinders" of armour to their immediate left and right which they couldn't see through at all.

I just raised the issue because .. if we look at not just the angle of the glass, but the angle of the pilots eyes to the quarterpanel glass, it looks like it's going to provide a fair percentage of refraction similar to the front glass plate. If 3/5ths of this effect wasn't noticable .. it just makes me wonder how much use it would really have been.

Thanks for looking it up all the same, it's always a hazard trusting what I find on google for this.

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

tsisqua
03-31-2004, 08:28 AM
Hi Folks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The FW is hardly ever the mount that I fly in, but it is one of my most feared enemies, so in that sense, I love this plane as much as you guys.

I am just chiming in to congratulate you all on the way that this is being discussed this time. Very hard work on the part of all that would like to see it changed, and possibly the only thread that may get results for you.

Ivan, you are the King-Mod, Sir. If someone had been handling this the way that you have in the beginning, the good guys that just wanted to present the facts would not have been buried beneath a ton of inflammatory posts. RESPECT

Tsisqua

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/tsisqua-nedChristie.jpg
Tsalagi Asgaya Galvladi

JorBR
03-31-2004, 10:45 AM
Just moving from another, closed, thread

http://wald.heim.at/urwald/541469/schnappschuesse/dead-horse.jpg

"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"

JG14_Josf
03-31-2004, 11:24 AM
http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_a_1.jpg

Did anyone read the above document?

That report posted on Ring's page must be the same report in Alfred Price's book Titled:
Focke Wulf Fw 190 in Combat

The words in Alfred Pricees book are verbatim.

Here is a description of that document:

"Following initial flight trials at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough in July 1942, the captured Focke Wulf 190 flew to the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford for tactical trials, The resultant report, issued in August 1942 and reproduced below almost in its entirety, is a model of what such an intelligence document should contain. In Places the language was complimentary in the extreme. The reader should bear in mind that these are not the words of a Focke Wulf salesman trying to boost his firm's product, but those of an enemy forced to give an opponent grudging admiration in time of war."

Note the words 'grudging admiration in time of war'

If it is difficult for anyone to read the document I can copy it to the best of my ability.

I'll add some comments in bracketts because I like adding comments.

-5-
Harmonization

24. The harmonization ranges for each pair of guns are:-
Two M.G.17 guns at 300 meters or 330 yards.
Two M.G.151/20 mg. guns at 250 meters or 270 yards.
Two Oerlidon FF 20 ms. guns are not symetrical about the vertical centre line. The port gun covnerges whereas the starboard gun diverges with the result that they cross over 1'2" on the starboard. This may be due to incorrect harmonization.

25. The sight line crosses the vertical center line at 30 yards and is therefore considerably offset to port, i.e. 2 feet at 500 yards range. [The gunsight is not centered in the cockpit therefore it seems reasonable that this too must be harmonized. In this case it appears as if harmonization occurs at 30 yards.]

The sight line is also depressed relative to the gun lines. Even afer allowing for gravity drop of the bullets, the sight line is still about 6 feet below the centre of the bullet pattern at 500 yards range. It is a possibility that the depression of the sight is intentional in order to counteract the usual tendency of aiming too low. On the other hand, it may be due to incorrect harmonization. [ Imagine having the game IL2 set-up so that the gunsight is pointing 6 feet lower than where the bullets hit at 500 yards. In other words you can place the target in the gunsight but the bullets will be 6 feet over the target at 500 yards. Now consder what this could be used for when trying to shoot at a turning target that tends to dissapear under the nose of the plane.]

Bullet Patterns
26. The bullet patterns, obtained with the guns harmonized above, are shown in Appendix 'g'. [Where is that document?]

Sighting View

27. The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, is about a half ring better than that from a Spitfire. the view downwards from the centre of the sight graticule to the edge of the reflector plate holder, is about 5 degrees. This view is not obtained by elevating the guns (and consequenty the sight) relative to the line of flight, but is entirely due to the attitude of the aircraft in flight, which is nose down. In terms of defelction allowances the view downards is 160 mph. and this enables the pilot to sight and fire at angles of attack as follows:-
Target Speed/Angle of Attack
200mph/60deg
300mph/40deg
400mph/25deg
--------------------------------------------

Here is another comment from Alfred Prices book concerning that report.

"The aircraft and its performance were examined in the minutest detail, to derive anything of value from the windfall"

So, here are British Fighter Pilots Testing a capture Fw 190 during the war in 1942.

They find the Sighting view to be better in the Fw 190 and they even try to figure out why it is better. They come up with this conclusion: 'The view is not obtained by elevation the guns (and consequently the sight) relative to the line of flight, but its entirely due to the attitude of the aircraft in flight, which is nose down.'

Those British pilots sound a lot like us, trying to figure out why the Fw190 in IL2 has such a horrible forward sighting view, only they are not trying to figure out why the Fw 190 has such a bad sighting view. They are trying to figure out why an Fw 190 can sight and fire at 60 degrees Angle of Attack!

They have good reason to figure this stuff out because those Fw190's were shooting at them.

ajafoofoo
03-31-2004, 02:14 PM
Exactly Josf,

There couldn't be more plain proof than that.

Yet still the fw190 in game is a half ring WORSE than the spitfire.

It's backwards and the very reason this "dead" horse keeps getting beating.

The in game version simply does not reflect historical reality.

TheRealMatrix
04-01-2004, 12:10 PM
The refraction issue with Fw190:

Clint-Ruin and LEXX_Luthor:

I did the refraction calculations about a year ago, so I can provide you with the result without the requirement of your "elbow-grease".

This is the step that "elevates" the sight line, or "lowers" the BAR and cowling.

The Document is here:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/killerevidence/fw190_cockpit_sheet_1.jpg


The BAR and Cowling (and everything else) is lowered by more than 30mm.
This improves sight forward down dramatically, cause the BAR is only ~40cm away from the pilots eye.

At te same time, this is meaningless on a distance of 100m - and allowes to utilize the advantage without disatvantages, well-planned by the genius Kurt Tank.

[This message was edited by TheRealMatrix on Sat April 03 2004 at 06:50 AM.]

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
04-01-2004, 12:15 PM
In the name of all FW190 fans ! Keep it on boys !

I still don't know why oleg thinks it to be difficult to fix. even if he wouldn't like to model a new cockpit he could shift the angle of the cockpit let's say 5-10Ô?down. From the outside the plane is untouched and from the inside it would appear as f the bird would be flying nose down. All you need to do then is to raise the revi slightly.

Amazing. imagine seeing the horizon in level flight.. what an experience... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Good luck !

BTW: for all the "dead horse" spammers. Why don't you go away if you'Re not interested ?
Need attention ?

http://www.hell-hounds.de/sigs/gotcha.jpg

dahdah
04-01-2004, 01:17 PM
For the A-8, possible because it was used more for bomber interception, the guns were set as follows:

MG131 - harmonization 400m, crossover, parallel
MG151/20(inboard) - harmonization 550m, crossover, 600m
MG151/20(outboard) - harmonization 550m, crossover, 400m


If the gondola weapons were attached:

MG131 - harmonization 400m, crossover, parallel
MG151/20(inboard) - harmonization 550m, crossover, 600m
MG151/20(gondola inboard) - harmonization 550m, crossover, 800m
MG151/20(gondola outnboard) - harmonization 550m, crossover, 900m

crossover is the horizontal plane
harmonization is the point the bullets cross the sighting line(vertical plane)



Not to go OT, but can someone explain weapon radius.

The manual says:

MG151/20(inboard)
weapon radius - 685mm
mv - 705m/s

MG131
weapon radius - 980mm
mv - 750m/s

The computed tolerance can be exceeded by 4%. Permitted firing pattern dispersion:20% of the computed tolerance.

The shot pattern for the MG131 must be fired at one time(21 rds/gun)

max spread for 100% hits:
height = 100cm, width = 80cm @ 100m range

The shot pattern for the MG151/20(inboard) must be fired at one time(21 rds/gun)

max spread for 100% hits:
height = 70cm, width = 60cm @ 100m range
height = 35cm, width = 30cm @ 50m range

The shot pattern for the MG151/20(outboard) must be fired at one time(21 rds/gun)

max spread for 100% hits:
height = 70cm, width = 80cm @ 100m range
height = 35cm, width = 40cm @ 50m range

clint-ruin
04-01-2004, 01:38 PM
Wow! Thanks for that info DahDah. Might be worth contributing it to the huge-arse .50 cal thread Gibbage started so that Gib can pass some of that data on to Oleg when he talks to him about dispersion in FB generally.

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

clint-ruin
04-01-2004, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheRealMatrix:
The refraction issue with Fw190:

Clint-Ruin and LEXX_Luthor:

I did the refraction calculations about a year ago, so I can provide you with the result without the requirement of your "elbow-grease".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the specifics of how it's calculated!

My only issue of concern remains .. OK, I can see that the bar disappears .. but for light entering from below the horizontal on that graph .. how much of the "bar" would then be replaced with the nose and cowl? Any? None?

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

sugaki
04-01-2004, 01:43 PM
Not a fan of the FW-190, and don't like flying it because of the view. But I sympathize with your plight http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Seems like a valid issue to be irked about, especially for fans of the plane.

BBB_Hyperion
04-01-2004, 02:34 PM
You can just use the same Formular but with changed entry angle so just change the alpha angle with it in therealmatrix calculation sheet and you will see what comes out. There are different angles tho about the angle from horizontal to cooling one speaks of 5 degrees 35 minutes seems realistic but its not mentioned of this is optained by the view or if it was the angle after amored glass between cowl
guns that could be 2.5 degrees .

Regards,
Hyperion

[This message was edited by BBB_Hyperion on Thu April 01 2004 at 01:42 PM.]

04-01-2004, 02:45 PM
You know, the Spitfire cockpit was built *after* the original Fw190 debate erupted. The Fw 190 cockpit is _old_.

We have seen that the developers are willing to go back and revise cockpits e.g. the yellow stains on the Bf 109 Erla haube, the Lavochkin and MiG gunsights, etc.

Unfortunately fixing the 190 view is harder than repainting a texture. It's probably also harder than simply moving the gunsight. Maybe that's why they're being so stubborn. Have any 3D modellers volunteered to redo the cockpit?

kalo456
04-02-2004, 11:04 AM
Hello all,

I just wanted to ask everybody their opinions on the rest of the cockpit framing in the 190, not just the horizontal frame below the revi. I find the vertical frame bars to be completely over done. When I am in a P-51 cockpit, I imagine that thats what the FW-190 cockpit should look something like. The horizontal bar is nothing compared to how much view you loose from the other cockpit framing. I read earlier in this thread that they stated the FW-190 had marginally better forward view than a P-51. I don't undderstand where things went wrong in this FW-190. Other sims that have featured the plane, EAW, WW2 fighters, aces over europe, they all did a decent job. I mean those games weren't half as pretty or realistic, but the view from the pit was never an issue. I mean if Oleg says that the FW-190 is his favorite plane, how can he not see there is something totally wrong? Not to get back on any form of Oleg or Maddox bashing......

Does anyone think it should be feasible to just remove some of the pixels from the vertical and top cockpit frame work? If I am correct the 3D landscape and graphics are still being rendered behind whatever cockpit art is associated with any given plane. So if an artist were to take some pixels off and replace the new modded cockpit for the original, it shouldn;t affect the game at all. You would just see more. I have been reading that the same technique might possibly not work with the lower horizontal cockpit bar because it would essentially be removing some of the cowling.

Can the cockpit graphic files be accessed and modded? does anyone know? I mean I am not suggesting that we go freelance and start modding any cockpit we want. But rather if this could be a project for some dedicated sim/artist types to work on and then submit to Maddox. To show them what could be done to improve things and how easy it really is. Then perhaps maddox could supply this as an optional patch for users that had issue with the fW-190's cockpit.

I do also agree that this discussion thread is being handled very constructively and I hope that someone will decide to hear our voices. I am still hoping. So many things have gotten better in this sim so far, it's come a long way. Hopefully it can continue. I just really feel that due to the fact that the Luftwaffe only has 2 primary fighter types, if the pit of 1 is screwed up, this is a big issue. It IMHO deserves some serious attention. Hell if someone would tell me how to try and mod the cockpit, I would be more than happy to spend some hours on it......

Kalo

Kurfurst__
04-02-2004, 12:13 PM
Interesting. Keep it on.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg

Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us.
And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below :
For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

blabla0001
04-02-2004, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by II_JG2_Roth:
Anyone else out there going to make a WW2 flight sim out there that isn't bias against German Aircraft?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, those German planes are complete crap in this game, the Russian IL2 Team won 2 tournaments flying German planes.

They even won 5000 $ in the last one.

http://209.163.146.67:8080/ivan/35.jpg

Such bias, Oleg only gave them the good German planes.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[This message was edited by Cappadocian_317 on Fri April 02 2004 at 12:48 PM.]

II_JG2_Roth
04-02-2004, 01:50 PM
Yep...Russians won, it proves it. And I highly doubt they were German Planes. How could they not fly there Precious LA's? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif IL2 Designers are Bias.

Roth

blabla0001
04-02-2004, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by II_JG2_Roth:
Yep...Russians won, it proves it. And I highly doubt they were German Planes. How could they not fly there Precious LA's? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif IL2 Designers are Bias.

Roth<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO, it's pretty obvious you didn't pay attention to these Tournaments.

They flew German planes and they beat everybody.

http://209.163.146.67:8080/ivan/25.jpg

=FB= is the Russian team.

I even want to bet with you that they will remove your behind and serve it to you on a silver platter flying a German plane and you flying a LA.

[This message was edited by Cappadocian_317 on Fri April 02 2004 at 01:25 PM.]

Red_Baroness
04-02-2004, 03:42 PM
Oh yes, like Roth has TIME to pay attention to every little asinine thing you think is important.

Besides, Mr. Change-the-Subject - this is a _190_ thread, not a 109 thread.

I don't see the Russkis flying the 190 - they chose one of the better modelled German A/c (the G6/AS) for their flight, so your comment is immaterial and out of order.

Apparently, they also have time to waste by spending it online day in and day out playing games, like some people I know who have nothing better to do than antagonize other folks just for kicks and giggles.

Roth and I, however, have better things to do than argue with a half-wit such as yourself.

My OPINION stands. The german planes in IL2-FB overall are not up to the par of the rest of the planes in the game. I will not cry bias, but I will cry "Under-developed!".

Nuff said. Now you go crawl back in your hole and I'll go back to my hangar and polish the prop of my little Fokker and wait oh so patiently to see you in the air again so I can make a nice new coat outta yer hide.

Red.

----,---'--&gt;@
Karena von Richthofen
"Velvet glove, iron fist"
Deustches Eisen

blabla0001
04-02-2004, 03:54 PM
Roth said German aircraft, and now I changed the subject because of that?

His stupid bias rant changed the subject.

Skalgrim
04-02-2004, 04:00 PM
with icon and outview are 109 very good


you can then bnz tatik very effective use and has no trouble with surprise from opponent

but fullreal

plane like yak,migs kill you much easier, because you can she only see when it is most to late and bnz tatik works not good, when you have proplem to see you opponent

many plane like yaks,p51,mig etc have very little dots and 109,p39,la-7 are the very big dots


i hate this most in fb

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Fri April 02 2004 at 03:26 PM.]

blabla0001
04-02-2004, 04:23 PM
The Tournament VikS and Storm won in the Netherlands was full real with speed bar only.

04-02-2004, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
http://209.163.146.67:8080/ivan/35.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it just me, or does that guy look a lot like Super Greg?

blabla0001
04-02-2004, 04:41 PM
Super Greg has a unibrow, this guys Storm doesn't. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

crazyivan1970
04-02-2004, 05:00 PM
Ok guys... This thread is slipping and trolls are surfacing...Now, i would like one or two of you make a report with all proves and findings that you have and compile 1 report. Just 1. I`ll deliver it and you`ll get your answer. You got till monday. Deal? PT me when it`s ready. I`ll give you e-mail.

To Roth and friends... don`t push my buttons, i mean it. There is a thin red line between posting and trolling...you walking it. Just to remind you...trolling is bannable. We cool?

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

crazyivan1970
04-02-2004, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
with icon and outview are 109 very good


you can then bnz tatik very effective use and has no trouble with surprise from opponent

but fullreal

plane like yak,migs kill you much easier, because you can she only see when it is most to late and bnz tatik works not good, when you have proplem to see you opponent

many plane like yaks,p51,mig etc have very little dots and 109,p39,la-7 are the very big dots


i hate this most in fb

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Fri April 02 2004 at 03:26 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to clarify... even that there are exteranls in the tournament...players were allowed to use Joystick and throttle only, no keyboard. And...external view was not allowable button on the stick. Reason for Icons is rather simple...games were translated on gaming network channel on TV.

Another thing... G6/AS is probably the best all around fighter in the game... and apparently =FB= guys were aware of it. La7 and all other so called UBER birds were available too... BUT, Russian team didn`t take those... i wonder why.

Conclusion...any accusations in BIAS are just sore argument IMO. LW birds simply rule, in all years. Flying COOPs on regular bases with damn fine pilots, often i end up on red side...and trust me... i`d turn that La or Yak in for G10 anytime... If your impressions based on DF servers...oh well, you just need reality check.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

IVJG51Swein
04-02-2004, 08:40 PM
Well said CrazyIvan..S!

http://images.snapfish.com/33%3A3%3B93523232%7Ffp8%3Enu%3D3232%3E44%3B%3E5%3C 8%3E232344%3B6%3B9996ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/33%3A3%3B93523232%7Ffp8%3Enu%3D3232%3E44%3B%3E5%3C 8%3E232344%3B6%3B99%3A3ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/33%3A3%3B93523232%7Ffp58%3Dot%3E232%3A%3D6%3B%3A%3 D437%3DXROQDF%3E23234%3B9536255ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/33%3A3%3B93523232%7Ffp58%3Dot%3E232%3A%3D6%3B%3A%3 D437%3DXROQDF%3E23234%3C3%3C56349ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/33%3A3%3B93523232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E2323%3D53%3C%3D8 66%3D323253%3C7755%3A%3Cnu0mrj

II_JG2_Roth
04-02-2004, 11:11 PM
Quote/His stupid bias rant changed the subject//Quote

Opinions are like A-S-S Holes and it seems to me you need yours plugged. Mr.Crappadocian however I can't reach you from here...good thing too.

Anyone can beat a bf-109gAS against a KI in this game..Hmmm did I mention anything about Jap planes? Yep...German planes Overall do suck except for the He-111's and Bf-110's. All the German planes Especially the FW series are Stall Happy and Stink. The Bf-109G-2 and Bf-109AS are good...however anyone who has done there Homework will know that in real life they F and the K's were better than all the G's and the E's. However in the game it's the other way around.

Roth
CFS3 Designer aka LuftwaffeOberst

BBB_Hyperion
04-02-2004, 11:36 PM
This is about the forward view not about fm, icas etc. There are even russian planes who suffer from this problem. Also next topic can be why the temperature gauge is mostly at limit wouldnt it make sense to make a gauge that shows over all circumstances within a readable scale ?

Regards,
Hyperion

blabla0001
04-03-2004, 03:29 AM
Then stick with CFS3 Roth.

And stop cluttering up this thread about the FW forward view with your bias cruisade against the designers of this game.

Don't like this game, simply sell it on Ebay.

Flamin_Squirrel
04-03-2004, 04:17 AM
Appologies for the off topic post, but does anyone know of a link to the tracks for the previously mentioned match?

04-03-2004, 04:47 AM
What are we supposed to do even if the bar _IS_ wrong? Oleg has already said he's not going to fix it. Rubbing salt in the wound isn't going to help it heal.

The next step, if you want to keep at it, is to create a 3rd party Fw 190 model and convince Oleg to replace it. Save the developers some of the work of doing it themselves.

blabla0001
04-03-2004, 04:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flamin_Squirrel:
Appologies for the off topic post, but does anyone know of a link to the tracks for the previously mentioned match?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you go: http://www.saitek.ru/champ/MAKS2003/track/

klemlao
04-03-2004, 05:11 AM
As it's fundamentally a fixed view in a simulation (some might say 'game'?) it could just be the best compromise between reality and being able to fly it with a reasonable view of the instruments (I, for instance, don't have 'TIR').

Does Eric Brown tell us how many instruments he could read whilst staring through the FW gunsight making his comparison with the Spitfire?

In Aces High - sorry if offensive http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - you can slide your head forward and back and up and down. Perhaps if that were possible in FB the 'correct' view may be achieved (no, I don't want moveable head or a thread on Aces High, it's not a comparison, just a reference http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif )

klem

TheRealMatrix
04-03-2004, 08:25 AM
Come on guys, stick to posting facts and commenting them in an adult and polite manner.

Offensive words have no right to exist in this thread.

CRAZY IVAN, maybe it'll be better if you delete some of the replies.