PDA

View Full Version : Not another FW-190 Forward view... a real FW-190D13



XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 08:29 PM
PLEASE don't start another war thread... I just wanted to share with the community
hope ya'll enjoy these

http://jrjacobs.mystarband.net/images/ArmorSeatSide.jpg

Armored Seat
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://jrjacobs.mystarband.net/images/Revi16-B.jpg

A Genuine Revi16-B
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://jrjacobs.mystarband.net/images/RightFrontEngine.jpg

Look at that engine
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://jrjacobs.mystarband.net/images/Leftside.jpg

Left Side
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://jrjacobs.mystarband.net/images/AftLookFront.jpg

Looking forward

They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..
General John Sedgwick's last words spoken while looking over the parapet at enemy lines during the battle of Spotsylvania in 1864


Message Edited on 07/04/0307:30PM by JRJacobs

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 08:29 PM
PLEASE don't start another war thread... I just wanted to share with the community
hope ya'll enjoy these

http://jrjacobs.mystarband.net/images/ArmorSeatSide.jpg

Armored Seat
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://jrjacobs.mystarband.net/images/Revi16-B.jpg

A Genuine Revi16-B
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://jrjacobs.mystarband.net/images/RightFrontEngine.jpg

Look at that engine
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://jrjacobs.mystarband.net/images/Leftside.jpg

Left Side
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://jrjacobs.mystarband.net/images/AftLookFront.jpg

Looking forward

They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..
General John Sedgwick's last words spoken while looking over the parapet at enemy lines during the battle of Spotsylvania in 1864


Message Edited on 07/04/0307:30PM by JRJacobs

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 08:48 PM
LOOK AT THIS ENGINE!

"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 08:52 PM
WOW! Spectacular shots. Thanks JRJ.

Cloyd

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 09:01 PM
That last one seems pretty damming (you better Delete it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif ). Maybe Oleg got it right.

But the cockpit struts do seem smaller.

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 09:16 PM
I saw that airplane before the current resto - it's looking fantastic! It will be airworthy, but I'm not sure if they plan on actually flying it.

Barfly
Executive Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 09:44 PM
It will be airworthy, but I'm
- not sure if they plan on actually flying it.

AFAIK they do /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.chrissi007.de/jabog32)

Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu

Come As You Are !

http://www.jg68.de.vu

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 10:15 PM
Great pictures JRJacobs! And thanks for giving us updates on the D-13, please continue doing this!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Thanks again!


http://members.chello.se/unni/Ta152C.jpg

The Ta 152C

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

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 10:29 PM
Thanks for sharing the pics, they're great./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


"Kimura, tu es une tªte carée comme un sale boche!"

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 10:36 PM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- That last one seems pretty damming (you better
- Delete it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif ). Maybe Oleg got it
- right.

Not to open old wounds, but I couldn't let an inncorrect observation go -- uncorrected.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


You mean after 20 odd pages and more, you still dont understand the concept of refraction.


Note--- there is no glass in the above photo.


Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 06:37 PM
One thing of note (nothing to do with view). Notice the engine mounted upside down, with no oil pan? These must have had high pressure oil pumped in from an oil tank. Wonder if the tank was armored? That was a weak spot in the IL2, and wonder if this plane had the same problem?

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 08:25 PM
Thanks for the cool pics/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

----------------------------------------
I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

As we all know, the Soviet Union had too many fighter pilots during WW2. So Stalin's scientists came up with a brillient way to solve this problem. They would make some of their pilots fly British made Hurricanes. The Hurricane was an uber flying coffin. It was designed to maximize pilot kills by providing nothing but fabric and a few wooden spars around the cockpit. This setup prevented the pilot from escaping easily while at the same time not interfering with enemy bullets and shrapnel trying to pass through it. The rest of the Hurricanes structure was designed to ricochet bullets and shrapnel into the cockpit. And thanks to the cockpits superb design, all of them would pass through the cockpit and the pilot inside with little difficulty. Of course the Hurricane's designers didn't stop there. In order for the Hurricane to become a flying coffin, they had to make it easy to shoot. They did this by making the Hurricane the slowest monoplane fighter in use at the time and even gave it a very bulky shape so that it would be easy to spot and hit. The final feature of the Hurricane was its ability to bury or cremate itself. And because it was made of biodegradable materials, the Hurricane was environmentally friendly after it buried itself. Because of these brillient features, the Hurricane was a perfect flying coffin and helped the Soviets solve the pilot surplus they were suffering.
http://www.bestanimations.com/Humans/Skulls/Skull-06.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 08:59 PM
I'm actually getting used to the crappy forward view. Am I nuts?

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center> Butcher Bird
<center>
http://www.histoiredumonde.net/images/20_eme_siecle/avions/fw190/intro.jpg

<center.
http://perso.wanadoo.es/francesclleonsi/corsair2SKY.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 09:32 PM
I can live with the crappy forward view, but the highspeed agility and inability to stall it at 500km/h+ is starting to tick me off.

----------------------------------------
I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

As we all know, the Soviet Union had too many fighter pilots during WW2. So Stalin's scientists came up with a brillient way to solve this problem. They would make some of their pilots fly British made Hurricanes. The Hurricane was an uber flying coffin. It was designed to maximize pilot kills by providing nothing but fabric and a few wooden spars around the cockpit. This setup prevented the pilot from escaping easily while at the same time not interfering with enemy bullets and shrapnel trying to pass through it. The rest of the Hurricanes structure was designed to ricochet bullets and shrapnel into the cockpit. And thanks to the cockpits superb design, all of them would pass through the cockpit and the pilot inside with little difficulty. Of course the Hurricane's designers didn't stop there. In order for the Hurricane to become a flying coffin, they had to make it easy to shoot. They did this by making the Hurricane the slowest monoplane fighter in use at the time and even gave it a very bulky shape so that it would be easy to spot and hit. The final feature of the Hurricane was its ability to bury or cremate itself. And because it was made of biodegradable materials, the Hurricane was environmentally friendly after it buried itself. Because of these brillient features, the Hurricane was a perfect flying coffin and helped the Soviets solve the pilot surplus they were suffering.
http://www.bestanimations.com/Humans/Skulls/Skull-06.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 11:16 PM
Please, bring more updates as that thing is restored. Cool stuff.

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 12:49 AM
Very nice! Please stop in, again, with an update anytime. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 03:53 AM
Whups, just noticed someone else caught my observation.

Hey Maj. Death! Good Point! And still there's posts to have it pitch more effectively....


Neal





Message Edited on 07/09/0310:57PM by WWMaxGunz

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 12:55 PM
oooohhhh, now I know what my wish for next chrimas /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-12-2003, 01:01 AM
from THE NEVERENDING THREAD... not a point of view... just some additional pictures i posted there...

http://jrjacobs.mystarband.net/images/A01PilotviewCentered.JPG

The [first] photo is the low viewpoint with the glass installed /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://jrjacobs.mystarband.net/images/B02PilotviewwFullUp.JPG

The [second] photo is the high viewpoint with the glass installed /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://jrjacobs.mystarband.net/images/C03GlassSideView.JPG

The angle of the glass is real close to 20 degrees above horizontal /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://jrjacobs.mystarband.net/images/D04PilotviewwToScale.JPG

View with scale /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://jrjacobs.mystarband.net/images/E05wo_refraction.jpg

low viewpoint WITHOUT the glass installed /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


No flames no offense... enjoy the view

They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..
General John Sedgwick's last words spoken while looking over the parapet at enemy lines during the battle of Spotsylvania in 1864

XyZspineZyX
07-12-2003, 01:11 AM
Nice! What museum is this and where is it?

--------------------------------
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one.

XyZspineZyX
07-12-2003, 06:49 AM
hi,
to the first picture: can You take or get a pic in horizontal view..(move the plane's end up as for testing the guns)

You know ..different camera views ..produce different results ..
for a new pic:
the position of the camera should also in pilots eyes height + horizontal + with different lens

thx



JRJacobs wrote:
- from THE NEVERENDING THREAD... not a point of
- view... just some additional pictures i posted
- there...
-
-

XyZspineZyX
07-12-2003, 07:00 AM
at JRJacobs,
maybe there is a chance to take a pic in the position as shown here...as explained before...



http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A4-48s.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-12-2003, 09:53 AM
Jacobs - magnificent pictures!!!
They show very nice and very clear every detail in canopy which was discussed here.
Once more - thank you for cool shots.

3 International Avia Polk
***** 3.IAP_CHARLIE *****

XyZspineZyX
07-12-2003, 01:58 PM
sorry starfighter1... i don't own the plane... i'm sure they won't allow hoisting it for a picture... best i can hope for is if coincidently there's a camera around if they lift it

They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..
General John Sedgwick's last words spoken while looking over the parapet at enemy lines during the battle of Spotsylvania in 1864

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 02:17 PM
JRJacobs:


Thanks for posting these pics. That's got to be one of the most beautiful engines I've ever seen.

Where is this Dora located? Can the public see it?

Are they going to fly it?



<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 03:25 PM
Interesting, that glass doesn't refract. Take a look at the girders running across the hanger; there is no visual shifting in their position with the glass on.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 03:29 PM
WOW, Harry, you are right!!!
There is NO refraction at all!

Interesting - i hope thet all refraction whinners look at it with high attention.

3 International Avia Polk
***** 3.IAP_CHARLIE *****

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 04:39 PM
COLLIN_GRAY wrote:
- WOW, Harry, you are right!!!
- There is NO refraction at all!
-
- Interesting - i hope thet all refraction whinners
- look at it with high attention.
-


Unless the physics of light have changed the observation above makes no sense.

Look carefully, at first glance the lines appear unchange, but there is an image shift down. Remember this is a few centimeters, therefore across the hanger it doesnt seem much. Also remember the glass is not as thick as the original.

The effect of refraction would be more noticable if someone held a straight egde close the the cockpit.

Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 05:00 PM
Take another look at the photo's. In the first one the large cross bar at the top of the hanger doors is located far above the top of the gunsight. In the second one it is on the gunsight. Unfortunatly, the second photo was taken slightly lower, so you really can't tell how much refraction there is /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif .

----------------------------------------
<center>I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 08:21 PM
Jim_ wrote:
- Nice! What museum is this and where is it?
-
---------------------------------
- Any landing you can walk away from is a good one.



I'm not sure if anyone answered Jim, but-

it's not at a museum, pre se, GossHawk Unlimited is a warbird restoration company, and that's where the aircraft is in these pictures. Warbirds international did a nice bit on this D13 in their last issue. I had mentioned it a month or so ago, but couldn't find any pics and I don't have a scanner.



Message Edited on 07/13/0308:23PM by BBB462cid

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 01:38 AM
Maj_Death wrote:
- Take another look at the photo's. In the first one
- the large cross bar at the top of the hanger doors
- is located far above the top of the gunsight. In the
- second one it is on the gunsight. Unfortunatly, the
- second photo was taken slightly lower, so you really
- can't tell how much refraction there is /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif .
-

But if you extend the girder in the section without glass through the section with the glass, you will see that there is a miniscual change in its location, only a few minutes of a degree at most. I can test the refraction on my glasses, simply by looking at a straight bar, and comparing the level of the bar outside of my glasses view rank, to the level fo the bar inside the view range.

My lenses actually produce about a three degree downshift for objects parallel to my center of view, and the lenses are only 1.5-2 degrees of vertical. My vision has massive amounts of correction. (These are my first pair of high index lenses. They are the first pair that doesn't produce line distortion off my center of view, but now they are producting colour shifts. Everything seems to be slightly tinted yellow. Its rather wierd, but I think I'll stay with the lense type, as it is nice to have no more line distortion, and they are far, far, lighter than my previous lenses. It is as if a great wieght has been lifted off of my head, and my nose rejoiced.)

As for the distance o the girder, it seems to be around 30-40 meters away (~100-120 feet), possibly as far at 60 meteres (~200ft). By Il-2 standards, we're right on top of it, range 0.03-0.06.

Harry Voyager

Edit: Let me try that again: While there is defraction, it is only on the order of minutes, not degrees. Even accountign for the additional refraction caused by a full layer of bullet proof glass (roughly doubling the thickness) is would not produce a full degree of refraction. Even tripling the thickness would at most manage merely a degree.

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

Message Edited on 07/13/0307:45PM by HarryVoyager

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 03:25 AM
Olds663rd wrote:
- One thing of note (nothing to do with view). Notice
- the engine mounted upside down, with no oil pan?
- These must have had high pressure oil pumped in from
- an oil tank. Wonder if the tank was armored? That
- was a weak spot in the IL2, and wonder if this plane
- had the same problem?
-



All the DB engines used in the 109's were inverted V's as well.

Beautiful engine ..

I have read a few reports of DB/merlin swaps including DB powered hurricanes (Hungarian ??) and the Hispano/Merlin 109's and generally the DB has got the thumbs up as the better engine http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 03:56 AM
You guys just won't give up will you?

Isn't an overmodeled K4 and E series enough for you?


I'll tell you what. If you get your silly few millimeters of visibility on the FW you have to stop biatching about the "ufo" Yak3. OK?

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 04:18 AM
HarryVoager,

One cannot use concave or convex lenses to compare with the refraction of a plate glass with parallel sides. Anything outside the optical center will be inducing prism, which will then of course greatly magnify the refractive effect of the lense.

Take a plate glass, tilt it, then look at a straight horizontal edge in the distance (6-8 meters). Then hold a straight edge immediately behind the glass. In the first case it will be hard to see the refractive effect, in the second it will be quite obvious.


As I explained before, 3-4 cm at 50 meters will be difficult to see, but when its next to the glass -- ah forget about it./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Widgeon



Message Edited on 07/13/0311:26PM by widgeon

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 06:31 AM
Maj_Death wrote:
- Take another look at the photo's. In the first one
- the large cross bar at the top of the hanger doors
- is located far above the top of the gunsight. In the
- second one it is on the gunsight. Unfortunatly, the
- second photo was taken slightly lower, so you really
- can't tell how much refraction there is /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif .
-
-----------------------------------------
- <center><A HREF="http://jg1-oesau.org" TARGET=_blank>I/JG1
- Oesau</A> is recruiting. Join us!
-
- Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com
-
- At the start of WW2 the German army lacked
- experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average
- gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them
- out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to
- fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but
- very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft
- gunners to get a large amount of target practice on
- a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the
- Soviets help, by the end of the war the German
- anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the
- world.</center>



There is no refraction at all in those pictures, where did you guys get out this teory? where can we the against copit poster asosiation read about this?

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/the-aztek-eagles/A01PilotviewCentered.jpg


"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 06:33 AM
or may be i just dont know what you guys are talking about?


"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 08:52 AM
hi,
...agree..
a base course in'photography'
theoretics/+ praxis should be recommended for some here arround....

How to create in 3Dmax + import in to the game by the special feature of the game engine (re:shift+F1/gunsight fiew) is the problem of the developers creation of their general system of camera view in the game..

But anyway: a professional pic in horizontal way + different lens(see above my FW pic) is the base (+ correct blue print analyze) for better cockpit views for ALL planes.

Ugly bad pic,like that from O.M. in his thread,..that's an easy rumbled vindication...to the wrong forward + gunsight view design(overmodelled struts)of the FW-series...



Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- or may be i just dont know what you guys are talking
- about?
-
-
-
- "Never forget the past so we dont make the same
- mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 03:22 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- Edit: Let me try that again: While there is
- defraction, it is only on the order of minutes, not
- degrees. Even accountign for the additional
- refraction caused by a full layer of bullet proof
- glass (roughly doubling the thickness) is would not
- produce a full degree of refraction. Even tripling
- the thickness would at most manage merely a degree.

"To be sure, you is wrong." Get ahold of the drawings floating around, then do the math (ignore Bentley's angle, but use his eye sight level, and work back from the head. There is enough info there to do the calc. It is well over 1 degree (something like 1.4 degrees if memory serves.) The angle of the glass is very shallow, the glass is thick, the refractive index is high. It is simple geometry combined with Snell's law.

Imagine your glasses were 60 mm thick plate glass and at a 30 degree angle (vs. 90...) Of course, the weight would pull your ears off and crush the bridge of your nose...sacrifices must be made.

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 08:42 PM
Aztek_Eagle, you have to keep in mind that the angle with the refraction phenomen stay the same before and after the glass.

Refraction affects the height of the sight line, but when you see a point in nature that is 50m away, you see it just ~3cm lower than without glass, and you usually won't recongize this with your eyes, specially from such a picture.

Another thing here is it seems like it is not the original 50mm glass, but a thinner one, which reduces the effect even further.


Take a look in the original Fw190 Mega-thread postet by Oleg.

There I've postet correct physical calculation I've done.

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvsld&tpage=27&direction=0



Also, take a look at the glass-refraction phenomen thread by xanty, he shows great photos that confirm that the distant objects appear (approximately) just like there is no glass.

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvraa


The refracted sight line is parallel to the one without refraction.



Aztek_Eagle wrote:
-
-
- Maj_Death wrote:
-- Take another look at the photo's. In the first one
-- the large cross bar at the top of the hanger doors
-- is located far above the top of the gunsight. In the
-- second one it is on the gunsight. Unfortunatly, the
-- second photo was taken slightly lower, so you really
-- can't tell how much refraction there is /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif .
--
------------------------------------------
-- <center><A HREF="http://jg1-oesau.org" TARGET=_blank>I/JG1
-- Oesau</A> is recruiting. Join us!
--
-- Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com
--
-- At the start of WW2 the German army lacked
-- experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average
-- gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them
-- out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to
-- fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but
-- very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft
-- gunners to get a large amount of target practice on
-- a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the
-- Soviets help, by the end of the war the German
-- anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the
-- world.</center>
-
-
-
- There is no refraction at all in those pictures,
- where did you guys get out this teory? where can we
- the against copit poster asosiation read about this?
-
-
-
<img
- src="http://www.angelfire.com/empire/the-aztek-eag
- les/A01PilotviewCentered.jpg">
-
-
-
- "Never forget the past so we dont make the same
- mistakes in the future"





Message Edited on 07/14/03 07:45PM by TheRealMatrix

Message Edited on 07/14/03 07:47PM by TheRealMatrix

Message Edited on 07/14/0307:49PM by TheRealMatrix

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 09:40 PM
The light passing through the flat windshield is only displaced, the sight angle outside is the same as inside only it is higher up.

Something far away will not look shifted much at all. Something close up will. The glass itself will look thinner, much thinner at the angle the windshield is to the view. 30mm at 20cm is a bigger APPARENT angle than 30mm at 10m. The frame edge will appear to start lower down and rise lower than without the glass in place. It is that freaking SIMPLE. Only a Master of Ignorance can argue against the effect, and some of yas are PhD's at that.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 01:36 AM
This issue is absolutely absurd, Refraction has absolutely NO effect on shooting accuracy. Because the displacement is always the same regardless of distance (i.e. all images are displaced X inches for the FW190 Glass). The gunsight is simply calibrated for real world accuracy, which automatically accounts for displacement. Parallax issues do not exist when gunsights are focused at great distances, so the displacement is indeed always the same.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 02:01 AM
And when the displacement places the gunsight view over a blackage BY DESIGN... is that ridiculous? Only ridiculous maybe to not include the effect and then raise the pilots eye to get over the nose angle that yet blocks the sight even more? Better since internal 3D is seperate from external to make the glass look correct, thin at the bottom angling to thicker but not full thick at top?

If you close one eye, how big is your nose? Can you block view of something much larger far away with that nose? Of course you can! (But your nose is only very small, how can that be?, asks the doubters. So with that they prove the view is unblocked and therefore the FW190 is perfect. We must all give up to superior lack of reason!)
Can you hold a piece of flat glass to your nose angled to your line of sight and see around your nose? Yes, you can! Can that work without refraction (and why do some call that reflection? it is not) ? No, it can't. Good it is REAL.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 07:02 AM
There still seems to be a misconception that the displacement changes in regard to target distance and that the pilot must account for this. Remember that the refraction angle is cancelled out as light enters and exits the glass, although it does displace laterally in the process. Not only this, but the displacement for glass angled aftwards is always downwards assuming an index of refraction of >1.33 and a glass angle of ~20 degrees in level flight, so in fact you get a view that is a centimeter or two higher over the nose than your actual eyepoint might produce.

Many also say that 5cm can be a huge distance at 500 meters. But I would be extremely doubtful that the engineers did not simply correct this by lowering the gunsight by the displacement constant of the particular aircraft's glass. (This constant is determined by the angle of refraction of a light ray passing through the gunsight and the glass's thickness, not on object distance)

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 08:52 AM
5 cm is nothing at 500m. 5 degrees however, which is more than the over the nose through the sight view is a good bit, it's over 40m. The difference between 2.38 degrees and 3 degrees at 500m is only a bit over 5 meters, or half the length of most fighters from which you can watch the wings and nose to see where he is going in a lead turn chase and close.

It is not much, but it can mean a oad of difference in a lead chase where pulling 1/2 degree more lead means quicker closure and especially at a higher speed than your target, aka BnZ. beside, the view was really that way not what we get.

The back slanted windshield has the revi sitting right under it. In some versions of the FW the glass is thinner and I bet that the front surface is in the same place and allows the revi to sit so many mm's higher for better view in those models of FW. Why else cut the protection of the pilot?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 02:08 PM
ElAurens wrote:
- You guys just won't give up will you?
-
- Isn't an overmodeled K4 and E series enough for you?
-
-
- I'll tell you what. If you get your silly few
- millimeters of visibility on the FW you have to stop
- biatching about the "ufo" Yak3. OK? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hehe lol. Hmm that are 109s /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . I think they get toned down, like the 620-IAS-on-the-deck Yak-3. Anyways, who's b!@tch!ng about the Yak-3?? I think most luftwhiners whine about bad 190s and uber hurries, I-# and Las /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .



Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- There is no refraction at all in those pictures,
- where did you guys get out this teory? where can we
- the against copit poster asosiation read about this?

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/the-aztek-eagles/A01PilotviewCentered.jpg

That's just a 30mm glass and not a 50 or 60mm like in real FWs. The fist time it was posted, this info was below it.
Another factor is refraction index. There's glass that has one of 1,1 or even lower (closer to 1,0). Very difficult to produce though. And there's glass with 1,6 or even higher. And that's just "glass". I think armor glass could even be a bit more.


<hr>

<p align=center style="width:100%; filter:glow[color=#33CCFF, strength=2)">

<img src=http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/willey110.jpg border=0 alt="Hier geht's zur I/JG78"> (http://www.jg78.de)

</p><font color=59626B>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 02:38 PM
Flightvector wrote:
- This issue is absolutely absurd, Refraction has
- absolutely NO effect on shooting accuracy. Because
- the displacement is always the same regardless of
- distance (i.e. all images are displaced X inches for
- the FW190 Glass). The gunsight is simply calibrated
- for real world accuracy, which automatically
- accounts for displacement. Parallax issues do not
- exist when gunsights are focused at great distances,
- so the displacement is indeed always the same.


...and yet another clueless newbie wanders in to set us all straight without doing his research. Parallax has nothing to do with it. Refraction in the 190 has a large effect on what can be seen over the nose, and the view through the Revi since it *displaces* the view (including the Revi sightline) upward by a fair distance. This upward displacement changes the angle down the nose that can be observed although the Revi sightline is still focused at the same point in infinity. Refraction takes the present view of ~2.4 degrees over the nose and increases it to nearly 4 degrees and at the same time clears a bar that blocks view without the glass. The gun & sight still point in the same direction. The field of view change allows you to pull a lot more lead on the target, considerably simplifying the firing solution.

There is plenty of info in the various threads. Look up
Snell's law, pull up some of the drawings, then work up your own numbers. If you understand optics (questionable based on your post) then you should be able to recreate the effect...

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 03:06 PM
Ok where can we read about this refrection teory?

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 03:20 PM
Flightvector wrote:
- There still seems to be a misconception that the
- displacement changes in regard to target distance
- and that the pilot must account for this. Remember
- that the refraction angle is cancelled out as light
- enters and exits the glass, although it does
- displace laterally in the process. Not only this,
- but the displacement for glass angled aftwards is
- always downwards assuming an index of refraction of
- >1.33 and a glass angle of ~20 degrees in level
- flight, so in fact you get a view that is a
- centimeter or two higher over the nose than your
- actual eyepoint might produce.
-
- Many also say that 5cm can be a huge distance at 500
- meters. But I would be extremely doubtful that the
- engineers did not simply correct this by lowering
- the gunsight by the displacement constant of the
- particular aircraft's glass. (This constant is
- determined by the angle of refraction of a light ray
- passing through the gunsight and the glass's
- thickness, not on object distance)

Refractive index should be closer to 1.5 to 1.6 for armoured glass. Glass angle is 30 degrees if memory serves. I think the glass is 60 mm thick, but it has been 9-10 months since I did the calcs and looked up relevant info. The displacement worked out to something over 3 cm. The view angle available changes somewhat with the displacement since it allows you to look down at things that you would not be able to "look down" at otherwise. Takes a little trial and error to work this out from the drawing and calcs. Looks like you started to catch on a bit in your first paragraph but you still have a way to go.

Why would the engineers lower the gunsight to eliminate refraction? That would negate a gift of physics. You can still focus at a given point at infinity with the gunsight higher...and without having part of the sight blocked by a frame. No engineer worth his salt would work to eliminate the effect. We take advantage of whatever tricks we can to get the desired result in a design, and the desired result in this case is not "little old lady peeping over the dash through half a Revi."

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 03:24 PM
Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- Ok where can we read about this refrection teory?


Refraction is not just a theory, it's the law. Snell's Law.
Any web search will turn up many hits. Here is one http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/refrn/U14L2b.html

Setting up the drawing and working out the geometry is the difficult part of all this.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 06:04 PM
RedHarvest wrote:



Refraction in
- the 190 has a large effect on what can be seen over
- the nose, and the view through the Revi since it
- *displaces* the view (including the Revi sightline)
- upward by a fair distance. This upward displacement
- changes the angle down the nose that can be observed
- although the Revi sightline is still focused at the
- same point in infinity.



I would point out that to avoid confusion reference should be made to where the image seen moves when refracted.

The image is displaced down, which in effect makes our line of sight seem higher. One can see this by tracing the ray diagram thru the glass, the light coming in to the cockpit is shifted down. Therefore when it enters a persons eye the image will appear lower ie) the lower frame of the armor glass will be down, the nose of the plane will be down.

I agree with what you are saying RedHarvest, but the terminology may be confusing to others.

Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 06:45 PM
widgeon wrote:
- I would point out that to avoid confusion reference
- should be made to where the image seen moves when
- refracted.
-
- The image is displaced down, which in effect makes
- our line of sight seem higher. One can see this by
- tracing the ray diagram thru the glass, the light
- coming in to the cockpit is shifted down. Therefore
- when it enters a persons eye the image will appear
- lower ie) the lower frame of the armor glass will be
- down, the nose of the plane will be down.
-
- I agree with what you are saying RedHarvest, but the
- terminology may be confusing to others.


Fair enough. Image is displaced down, your point of view moves up. I rarely comment on the FW 190 gunsight view anymore...until someone like our other poster comes in and makes a statement like "this is absurd...it will have no effect" when they clearly have not run through the calculations properly.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 10:05 PM
RedHarvest wrote:

when they clearly
- have not run through the calculations properly.



I'll 2nd that, seems these long threads go through cycles of fact, and misinformation. The original point gets lost easily unless clarified now and then.


Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 10:13 PM
Atztech_Eagle and some others seem not to have found the post I linked above, and many others are interested in it, so I repost it here:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I wanted to do this long time ago, but now I've found a little time to do it.

I calculated and drew the refraction situation in Fw190 front armorglass by the optical laws of physics.


given facts of physical data:

d = 50mm (thickness of the armored glass)

alpha = 25? (angle of the armored glass to the horizontal)

n = 1.6 (refraction index of glass)

n air = 1 (refraction index of air)





Here is the result:


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



I've scanned the paper, and I've marked the effective line of sight in light blue for better recognition.


One box of this paper equals to 5mm.

The pilots eye is on the right end of the blue line.
The diagonal lines are the borders of the armored glass.
The space between them is filled with armor glass, while the remaining space is filled with air.


The important thing is the effect on the (realistic) view. It is the difference in height the refracted ray of light goes compared to the (now modelled) non-refracted one.


The result is delta h = 30.79mm


This is exactly the difference the metal bar gets lowered by refraction, no more no less.
(And this matches with the difference the metal bar should be lowered in the FB190 cockpit 3D-Model)

The effect on visibility though, is rather high, because the pilots eye is close to the armorglass.

ZG77_Nagual
07-16-2003, 01:19 AM
downward displacement is noticeable in the photo.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 01:42 AM
I agree



Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 02:01 AM
Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- There is no refraction at all in those pictures,
- where did you guys get out this teory? where can we
- the against copit poster asosiation read about this?

That picture does not show it as well as this one

http://airstrip.free.fr/TEMP/Brol.jpeg

I missed it the fist time I looked at it too.. And the top of the door you pointed out in that pic you use does not show much shift in the picture either... but look at the door itself, a little farther down and on the left side. Right about the REVI higth (about 10 1/2 on the ruler) in the bottom left hand corner.. note the shift in the cross bar on the door there.



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 02:04 AM
One other thing to keep in mind here, not sure, but I think the combo of the REVI and WINDOW GLASS plays into it, we are just looking threw the WINDOW GLASS.

TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 03:23 AM
Thanks for the picts. I especially like the ruler showing 6 inches of clearance between the cross post and the dash.

I had no idea the front window was so small. Imagine playing with a 8 x 6 inch monitor.

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 03:42 AM
any ways the refrection thing will not easyly modeled any ways, so just forget about it, may be next sim

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 03:47 AM
besides will u guys admit the fw190 copits are well modeled now?


"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 03:48 AM
because talking about refrection is a whole diferent thing than bad modeled copits

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 03:50 AM
Dude... yer spamming.

Read about the whys and comment on those, don't ask questions that have been answered unless you have something new.

Aztek_Spammer

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 04:48 AM
JV44Rall wrote:
- Thanks for the picts.

Dont thank me, I just copied the link!

- I especially like the ruler showing 6 inches
- of clearance between the cross post
- and the dash.

I agree, nice pictures, I wonder if that is a restore project, or that Fw190 build from scratch I read about years ago.

- I had no idea the front window was so small.
- Imagine playing with a 8 x 6 inch monitor.

Yeah, if you were closterphobic you would have probelms, the Spit was even worse. With the zoom the 8x6 is not so bad, but when you are at normial view they are displaying the dash too... about as much as is being displayed in that pic.



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 04:48 AM
Nice photo's Jacobs, as for the rest YAWN!

I would have loved to go partying with some of you guys, you must be a real hit with the ladies.



JG4_Tiger

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 04:50 AM
Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- any ways the refrection thing will not easyly
- modeled any ways, so just forget about it, may be
- next sim

Well... they dont have to MODEL it, just ACCOUNT for it. That is to say they dont have to come up with some model that has to be run to calculate the amount of refraction in real time, just adj the view to account for it from the get go... ie move the bar down... ie make it thinner to account for what the glass would do if refraction was modeled.



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 06:28 AM
Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- any ways the refrection thing will not easyly
- modeled any ways, so just forget about it, may be
- next sim
-
- "Never forget the past so we dont make the same
- mistakes in the future"

Exactly how far is your head inserted into your buttocks??? This has been discussed and answered many times. You don't have to model refraction explicitly, just move the bar and/or shift the gun sight and head position up by about 1-1/2 inches.

Are you trolling or are you really that stupid?

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 04:33 PM
Aztek_Eagle, agreed the Fw190 cockpit is well modelled. That is, except for the lower frame of the windshield glass.

The problem there is that the Revi's LoS is from inside the cockpit while the lower frame is shown as from outside the glass. The lower frame should be also modelled as from inside the cockpit.

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_images/cockpit.jpg


Note the dark red line showing the position of the lower frame on the inside.

As it is now, it is a mix of 'apples and oranges'.



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 07:06 PM
Tiger27 wrote:
- Nice photo's Jacobs, as for the rest YAWN!
-
- I would have loved to go partying with some of you
- guys, you must be a real hit with the ladies.



Oh ya, a little beer, small talk about optics and.....

you know the rest of the story./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 09:02 PM
So what makes the drawings accurate? Source please........

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 10:10 PM
This has become just another fw190 forward view thing


"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 01:47 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Me thinks astek eagle is going on a vacation.


Me thinks from his posts that he his mind has been on vacation for a looooonnng time.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 02:20 AM
Vengaenze wrote:
-
- BfHeFwMe wrote:
-- So what makes the drawings accurate? Source
-- please........
--
--
-
- That was irrational. Not to mention, unsporty. Can
- you do better ?
-
LoL, nice way to make your case, yup, absolutely right, highly irrational question. My little 6 year old niece makes pretty drawings too. Next time I've got a point to make, might just use them, much more accurate than a silly bunch of photo's. LoL

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 03:12 AM
BfHeFwMe wrote:
-
- Vengaenze wrote:
--
-- BfHeFwMe wrote:
--- So what makes the drawings accurate? Source
--- please........


Bentley made them in the UK from a captured FW190. This is very old news and has been discussed ad nauseaum. (Unfortunately there are a few like A$$hat_Eagle that seem stuck in a Ground Hog Day loop of confusion on the matter.) The drawings are good for providing the sighting level and distance away from the glass as well as identifying where the sight line will intercept the tangent of the engine cowling. Bentley's refraction line is incorrect, as the angle should originate down from the eye, then be refracted vertically then continue back down at the same angle it left the eye (takes a bit of trial and error.) This difference is why he shows greater than 5 degrees when it should be ~4 (vs. 2.4 in the 190 cockpit at present.) They are the best we have, because Oleg cannot release reproductions of the drawings he has. Oleg has admitted that refraction is not accounted for. Therefore, the view as shown in the sim is incorrect on this matter. It also neatly explains how the cockpit glass could be modeled accurately dimensionally, yet yield a clearly incorrect view. While I am willing to accept it not changing because Oleg doesn't want it to and it would require some rework to the cockpit models, that does not mean I believe that the gunsight view is correct as presently rendered.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 04:50 AM
HU HO every one is atacking me now, it is about the color of my skin isnt it! isnt it! ok it was not my fault to be born brown!

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 04:51 AM
Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- HU HO every one is atacking me now, it is about the
- color of my skin isnt it! isnt it! ok it was not my
- fault to be born brown!

YAWN!


TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 04:56 AM
RedHarvest wrote:
-
- BfHeFwMe wrote:
--
-- Vengaenze wrote:
---
--- BfHeFwMe wrote:
---- So what makes the drawings accurate? Source
---- please........
-
-
- Bentley made them in the UK from a captured FW190.
- This is very old news and has been discussed ad
- nauseaum. (Unfortunately there are a few like
- A$$hat_Eagle that seem stuck in a Ground Hog Day
- loop of confusion on the matter.) The drawings are
- good for providing the sighting level and distance
- away from the glass as well as identifying where the
- sight line will intercept the tangent of the engine
- cowling. Bentley's refraction line is incorrect, as
- the angle should originate down from the eye, then
- be refracted vertically then continue back down at
- the same angle it left the eye (takes a bit of trial
- and error.) This difference is why he shows greater
- than 5 degrees when it should be ~4 (vs. 2.4 in the
- 190 cockpit at present.) They are the best we have,
- because Oleg cannot release reproductions of the
- drawings he has. Oleg has admitted that refraction
- is not accounted for. Therefore, the view as shown
- in the sim is incorrect on this matter. It also
- neatly explains how the cockpit glass could be
- modeled accurately dimensionally, yet yield a
- clearly incorrect view. While I am willing to
- accept it not changing because Oleg doesn't want it
- to and it would require some rework to the cockpit
- models, that does not mean I believe that the
- gunsight view is correct as presently rendered.
-
-
-

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^

Who doesnt get confuse with that crap? besides, you guys first did say nothing about reflection, and say the copit was bad modeled, now you say copit is well modeled, but the feature of reflection is not include on the sim and needs to be included......... please decide first witch way you will take the discusion, so there is not more A$$hat_Eagle confuse around here... wonder who he is, his name sounds kind of familiar...




"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:13 AM
Astek Eagle, the word is >> R E F R A C T I O N <<, not reflection. The difference was explained to you in another post.

As for the cockpit modelling, no one said it was bad overall, only that a specific part was not done correctly. That part was the lower frame of the armoured glass. It is viewed as if there was no glass installed.

But since you are so easily confused >rolleyes<, it is a waste of time to try to explain this to you.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:17 AM
Aztek_Eagle wrote:
-
- RedHarvest wrote:
--
-- BfHeFwMe wrote:
---
--- Vengaenze wrote:
----
---- BfHeFwMe wrote:
----- So what makes the drawings accurate? Source
----- please........
--
--
-- Bentley made them in the UK from a captured FW190.
-- This is very old news and has been discussed ad
-- nauseaum. (Unfortunately there are a few like
-- A$$hat_Eagle that seem stuck in a Ground Hog Day
-- loop of confusion on the matter.) The drawings are
-- good for providing the sighting level and distance
-- away from the glass as well as identifying where the
-- sight line will intercept the tangent of the engine
-- cowling. Bentley's refraction line is incorrect, as
-- the angle should originate down from the eye, then
-- be refracted vertically then continue back down at
-- the same angle it left the eye (takes a bit of trial
-- and error.) This difference is why he shows greater
-- than 5 degrees when it should be ~4 (vs. 2.4 in the
-- 190 cockpit at present.) They are the best we have,
-- because Oleg cannot release reproductions of the
-- drawings he has. Oleg has admitted that refraction
-- is not accounted for. Therefore, the view as shown
-- in the sim is incorrect on this matter. It also
-- neatly explains how the cockpit glass could be
-- modeled accurately dimensionally, yet yield a
-- clearly incorrect view. While I am willing to
-- accept it not changing because Oleg doesn't want it
-- to and it would require some rework to the cockpit
-- models, that does not mean I believe that the
-- gunsight view is correct as presently rendered.
--
--
--
-
- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- ^^^^^
-
- Who doesnt get confuse with that crap?

Just because you dont understand something does not mean the subject is crap. And one sure why to insure you never undestand something is to call it crap as the guy is trying to explain it to you.

- besides, you guys first did say nothing
- about reflection,

Only because at first many didnt know, I for one didnt unitl I started reading what people where saying here.

- and say the copit was bad modeled, now you say
- copit is well modeled,

I think RedHarvest said it pretty well when he said;

>> Therefore, the view as shown
>> in the sim is incorrect on this matter. It also
>> neatly explains how the cockpit glass could be
>> modeled accurately dimensionally, yet yield a
>> clearly incorrect view.

What part of that are you having trouble with?

- but the feature of reflection is not
- include on the sim and needs to be
- included.........

Exactally.. But this does not mean they have to MODEL refraction in real time like say the FLIGHT MODEL. All they have to do is take into account the amout the refraction would effect the view and adj the current cockpit view by that amount.

- please decide first witch way you
- will take the discusion, so there is not more
- A$$hat_Eagle confuse around here...

I think they all decided a long time ago, just some people missed the point.. In that they were too busy trying to blame it on the color of their skin.... Shoe Fit?

- wonder who he is, his name sounds kind of familiar...

Yet another point you missed! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

-"Never forget the past so we dont make the same
- mistakes in the future"

Another old saying that would fit well here is "Look before you Leap"



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:19 AM
excuse mua mister perfecte, no all person talk english here, i will just go sit down at the corner and listen to mister know it all............ and no one has yet tell me where can i read abou refractationing in the fw cockpit? did i get it right now?

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:23 AM
tagert wrote:
- Aztek_Eagle wrote:
--
-- RedHarvest wrote:
---
--- BfHeFwMe wrote:
----
---- Vengaenze wrote:
-----
----- BfHeFwMe wrote:
------ So what makes the drawings accurate? Source
------ please........
---
---
--- Bentley made them in the UK from a captured FW190.
--- This is very old news and has been discussed ad
--- nauseaum. (Unfortunately there are a few like
--- A$$hat_Eagle that seem stuck in a Ground Hog Day
--- loop of confusion on the matter.) The drawings are
--- good for providing the sighting level and distance
--- away from the glass as well as identifying where the
--- sight line will intercept the tangent of the engine
--- cowling. Bentley's refraction line is incorrect, as
--- the angle should originate down from the eye, then
--- be refracted vertically then continue back down at
--- the same angle it left the eye (takes a bit of trial
--- and error.) This difference is why he shows greater
--- than 5 degrees when it should be ~4 (vs. 2.4 in the
--- 190 cockpit at present.) They are the best we have,
--- because Oleg cannot release reproductions of the
--- drawings he has. Oleg has admitted that refraction
--- is not accounted for. Therefore, the view as shown
--- in the sim is incorrect on this matter. It also
--- neatly explains how the cockpit glass could be
--- modeled accurately dimensionally, yet yield a
--- clearly incorrect view. While I am willing to
--- accept it not changing because Oleg doesn't want it
--- to and it would require some rework to the cockpit
--- models, that does not mean I believe that the
--- gunsight view is correct as presently rendered.
---
---
---
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-- ^^^^^
--
-- Who doesnt get confuse with that crap?
-
- Just because you dont understand something does not
- mean the subject is crap. And one sure why to insure
- you never undestand something is to call it crap as
- the guy is trying to explain it to you.
-
-- besides, you guys first did say nothing
-- about reflection,
-
- Only because at first many didnt know, I for one
- didnt unitl I started reading what people where
- saying here.
-
-- and say the copit was bad modeled, now you say
-- copit is well modeled,
-
- I think RedHarvest said it pretty well when he said;
-
- >> Therefore, the view as shown
- >> in the sim is incorrect on this matter. It also
- >> neatly explains how the cockpit glass could be
- >> modeled accurately dimensionally, yet yield a
- >> clearly incorrect view.
-
- What part of that are you having trouble with?
-
-- but the feature of reflection is not
-- include on the sim and needs to be
-- included.........
-
- Exactally.. But this does not mean they have to
- MODEL refraction in real time like say the FLIGHT
- MODEL. All they have to do is take into account the
- amout the refraction would effect the view and adj
- the current cockpit view by that amount.
-
-- please decide first witch way you
-- will take the discusion, so there is not more
-- A$$hat_Eagle confuse around here...
-
- I think they all decided a long time ago, just some
- people missed the point.. In that they were too busy
- trying to blame it on the color of their skin....
- Shoe Fit?
-
-- wonder who he is, his name sounds kind of familiar...
-
- Yet another point you missed! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
--"Never forget the past so we dont make the same
-- mistakes in the future"
-
- Another old saying that would fit well here is "Look
- before you Leap"
-
-
-
-
- TAGERT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your
- QUESTION?


i was talking about all fws threats that have been going for long, this place is the first threats i c u making more sence with the refration thing, the other 870 post in the other threats are based in none rasonable reason


"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:30 AM
Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- excuse mua mister perfecte,

Why Thank You!

- no all person talk english here,

I resemble that remark! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif But seriosly... Let me see if I got this straight... You realise you dont read or write english well... YET.. it does not stop you from calling something crap... Know all too well that you have a problem reading and writing english? That is to say, you know this, and called it crap.. not once stopping to ask yourself if this might be a case of you just not translating it correctly, thus not understanding it correctly? Well big gold star for effort!

- i will just go sit down at the corner
- and listen to mister know it all............

There you go... Hey, is this the part where you blame me or yourself for the color of your skin again? As if I can tell that from this BLACK and WHITE text?

- and no one has yet tell me where can i read abou
- refractationing in the fw cockpit?

Jezzz... did you read ANY of the post? I think I have seen about 10 links to 10 different storys on the subject in this thread alone.

- did i get it right now?

No, but dont give up, just sit in the corner for a min or two and before you reply to something... Ask yourself... could this be a situation where I am translating somethig wrong and thus misunderstanding it... Espically when you consider the FACT that a misunderstanding can happen even when you speak the laungae!! Translating just makes it more likly to happen!




TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:34 AM
I see no Fw threats, only some Fw threads.

Now if the lower frame is ever modelled correctly, the Fw will truly be a dangerous threat in FB.


Aztek_Eagle wrote:

-
- i was talking about all fws threats that have been
- going for long, this place is the first threats i c
- u making more sence with the refration thing, the
- other 870 post in the other threats are based in
- none rasonable reason
-
-
-


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:36 AM
Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- i was talking about all fws threats that have been
- going for long,

As was I.

- this place is the first threats i c
- u making more sence with the refration thing, the
- other 870 post in the other threats are based in
- none rasonable reason

Well.. not totally none reasonable reasons.. That is they KNEW there was a problem with the view... but just didnt know why. That by looking at real pictures, and by just looking at how worthless the view is in the game... They KNEW something was not right.. But not until someone noted the refraction issue did they know why it was wrong.



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:36 AM
mmmmmmmmmmm...... mmmmmmm........ ah......... mmmmmmmm.... eeeee........ mmmmmm.....

You guys shuld then start a diferent posting with the tittle, "We want refraction feature Oleg"?

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:38 AM
But still, i have not found any info in how german planes would use refraction in their conveniense, i have been asking around if there is a page where i can read about that

please who ever bring out that refraction thing please post the sourses

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:41 AM
Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- mmmmmmmmmmm...... mmmmmmm........ ah.........
- mmmmmmmm.... eeeee........ mmmmmm.....

Exactally! I saw that movie and thought the same thing!

- You guys shuld then start a diferent posting with
- the tittle, "We want refraction feature Oleg"?

Naaa, because they would just LOCK it and say there is allready a thread on the subject.


TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:43 AM
Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- But still, i have not found any info in how german
- planes would use refraction in their conveniense, i
- have been asking around if there is a page where i
- can read about that

I think just about any basic PHYSICS 101 book would have a chapter on how light bends.



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:44 AM
i undertend all, but my spellin is bad for some kind of words, confusing works, no no no, like the english lenguage that one leter has the 20k diferent sounds, and 1k words that sound the same mean diferents things, and i call crap evrything so dont get me that much seriously when i start to cuss alot, it is my nervs, it is all in the head, those voices arent real....... and yea u dont like me because i am not pruple

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:45 AM
i am an open mind so feed me

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:47 AM
so and this refraction would help all aircraft then, yaks la7s hurriacanes with even better copit view... this applays to every one doesnt it? so all copist views are bit low under their bisivility range?

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:47 AM
what is spawing?

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:49 AM
Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- i undertend all, but my spellin is bad for some kind
- of words, confusing works, no no no, like the
- english lenguage that one leter has the 20k diferent
- sounds, and 1k words that sound the same mean
- diferents things,

Funny.. I have the same problem and English is my 1st language! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Thank god at work I have a secratary to double check the stuff I write before I send it out for all to read! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- and i call crap evrything so dont
- get me that much seriously when i start to cuss
- alot, it is my nervs,

LOL! Well... been there done that! So I guess I cant blaim you too much! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- it is all in the head, those voices arent real.......

LOL!

- and yea u dont like me because i am not pruple

HAHHEHEHAHAHahaa... It is the pink ones that really make me mad!! Those dang irish after a few beers... get all pink and stuff... Those are the ones to watch out for! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:53 AM
Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- so and this refraction would help all aircraft then,
- yaks la7s hurriacanes with even better copit view...
- this applays to every one doesnt it? so all copist
- views are bit low under their bisivility range?

Well, Im no expert on the subject!! But it depends! The thickness of the glass, the type of glass, etc glass... Basically different types of glass can have different refractive indexes, thus different amounts of bending the light threw them. That and the angle the glass is relitive to your line of sight... probally some other stuff too, but Im just not that hip to it all, that is to say Im not an optomitrist! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?