PDA

View Full Version : Suggestion to make cockpit struts appear more realistic.



XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 01:21 AM
Here's an idea that I believe makes looking behind the cockpit struts more realistic. I call this idea 'partial ghosting' and effects only the outer edges of the struts. The center of the struts remain completely opaque. The theory behind this is to simulate binocular vision over the monocular vision currently in the sim.

I've posted these screenshots over at SimHQ and for the most part have received a positive response. Those who have spoken against this feel that
1. It does not look natural.
2. It would cause a drastic hit in FPS.
3. If it does create a frame rate hit, then those who are online would have distinct advantage over those who have slower systems.
4. Creates less immersion. (I think I got all of the nays)

I don't want to create a flame war here (I've seemed to have already caused the creation of a new term... strut-whiner/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ). And this is by no means meant to be related to the discussion of the 190 cockpit discussions already taking place.

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=001337

Partial Ghosting
http://il2.razadoo.com/graphics/ghost_1.jpg

Current View
http://il2.razadoo.com/graphics/ghost_2.jpg

Partial Ghosting
http://il2.razadoo.com/graphics/ghost_2_1.jpg

Current View
http://il2.razadoo.com/graphics/ghost_2_2.jpg



<left> http://www.knology.net/~raz/IL2/raz_snoop_still.gif

</left>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 01:21 AM
Here's an idea that I believe makes looking behind the cockpit struts more realistic. I call this idea 'partial ghosting' and effects only the outer edges of the struts. The center of the struts remain completely opaque. The theory behind this is to simulate binocular vision over the monocular vision currently in the sim.

I've posted these screenshots over at SimHQ and for the most part have received a positive response. Those who have spoken against this feel that
1. It does not look natural.
2. It would cause a drastic hit in FPS.
3. If it does create a frame rate hit, then those who are online would have distinct advantage over those who have slower systems.
4. Creates less immersion. (I think I got all of the nays)

I don't want to create a flame war here (I've seemed to have already caused the creation of a new term... strut-whiner/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ). And this is by no means meant to be related to the discussion of the 190 cockpit discussions already taking place.

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=001337

Partial Ghosting
http://il2.razadoo.com/graphics/ghost_1.jpg

Current View
http://il2.razadoo.com/graphics/ghost_2.jpg

Partial Ghosting
http://il2.razadoo.com/graphics/ghost_2_1.jpg

Current View
http://il2.razadoo.com/graphics/ghost_2_2.jpg



<left> http://www.knology.net/~raz/IL2/raz_snoop_still.gif

</left>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 02:20 AM
Hey Raz,

Actually, someone else found your thread in that other forum interesting and started a discussion about it here:
(EDIT: It is linked to your thread in SIMHQ)

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


--robster(44)

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

Message Edited on 06/14/0301:23AM by rbstr44

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 02:32 AM
This will require a huge effort on the 3D and programming department. Basically, a total re-design of textures and materials, and for each plane/cockpit. Way too much. We may get virtual glasses and periferic devices by then /i/smilies/16x16_man-happy.gif

<img src=http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/sig02.gif>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:11 AM
I think this is a great idea, if possible.

I would even support going further and making the whole side strut transparent. As well as designing the upper struts in the correct position.

I would do so not because this is the manner in which the real strut appears in reality, but because of the already non-existent manner in which peripheral vision is modeled in sims and on computer monitors.

I feel like the lack of peripheral vision, and visual acuity already detracts from realistic perception in the sim, and see no reason to carry this to a further extreme by modeling the cockpit struts to such a high degree of realistic apperance and further blocking up to 50% of the available screen area.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:20 AM
Elimination of big cockpit canopy was best done with clear bubble canopies. There is a reason designers tried to move away from the framed canopies, and what we see in FB is the reason why.

I am not sure the "model head movement" is so simple. Especially in high g~turns or in buffeted high speed aircraft, head movement is not as easy as we do it in front of computer. Experienced fighter pilots perhaps could get away with some rapid head movements more than Newbie pilots.

In fact, I will make the statement that FB should model aircraft flight from the perspective of the low time inexperienced pilot. But everybody wants to be an ace.

Funny, the Il~2 has the most massive canopy struts in THE GAME, yet nobobdy complains about the view during ground attack. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif The horrible canopy struts in many FB aircraft are annoying, but may be what real pilots had to deal with.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:27 AM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:

"I am not sure the "model head movement" is so simple. Especially in high g~turns or in buffeted high speed aircraft, head movement is not as easy as we do it in front of computer."

---------

Yes this is true. But this does not even address the lack of pheripheral vision in sims on on monitors.

One can move their head all over the place in front of their monitor and their view does not change. It is still the small 30 degree picture in front of them. Of course with TrackIR the picture on the monitor pans, but one is still left with a 30 degree image.

In a real warplane one had the benefit of almost 180 degree vision from side to side also when looking directly forward. This adds much to ones orientation to the horizon as well as to the view of the enemy.

If we are seeking realism there needs to be some manner in which to make up for, if only slightly this lack of vision as well as the visual accuity lost due to the lesser resolutions of computer monitors vs. reality.

An easy manner in which to see this difference is the amount of vision one has in their car vs. sitting in front of their monitor. The only difference would be the height of ones dashboard and the lack of rear visibility. As in your car, side to side visibility is virtually unobstructed.

Ones monitor picture especially in cockpit view comes nowhere near this, or the view in reality. In this respect, many actual pilots have stated that they feel open cockpit is more representitive of the view in an actual warplane. And most actual aircraft simulators do not simulate an instrument panel or cockpit structure.

As usual somewhere in the middle is probably more accurate than either extreme.



Message Edited on 06/13/0310:46PM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:51 AM
You got me to thinking of a neat idea, but first....

We have up to 90 degree field of view on our monitors in FB. We are not limited to 30 degrees. Peripheral vision cannot detect small objects like aircraft beyond the cockpit. No need to compensate for anything here.

The almost 180 degree field of view is purely for orientation purposes, which is why we must turn our heads in the general direction, then zero in by moving our eyes to see small objects there. You cannot detect a distant aircraft outside of about 20 dgrees of your sight center, of course that number is dependent on apparent aircraft size, illumination, and relative apparent velocity.

Now, this is an idea you may enjoy, and will not hurt frame~rate:: how about when we look outside the cockpit and focus at infinity, we see two (2) canopy frames that are both evenly semi-transparent, except for an evenly solid non~transparent overlap. But no overlap for very thin cockpit struts. This would be the realistic way to model binocular vision of near objects when we focus on objects far outside our cockpits.

The problem here is that doing this on a computer screen would be even more visually irritating, as the double image would take up more space than the single strut image we have now. But then perhaps your single ghost canopy struts could be done with a few steps in transparency rather than many--a compromise on CPU computations.

Funny, the solid massive strut of Fw-190 would then be two overlapping massive struts of the same size. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif I don't think we would like this, even if you could see through the non~overlapped images.

I say they should concentrate their programming on improving AI behavior in THE GAME. Granted a ghost canopy would help the ace arcade online dogfighers against humanoid piloted aircraft. I would be interested in hearing a complaint from ground attack simmers about the canopy struts in the Il~2, struts which make the Fw-190 canopy a bubble canopy by comparison.

I'd love to see somebody try to tell Oleg he got the Il~2 cockpit wrong. hehehe

Message Edited on 06/14/0303:13AM by LEXX_Luthor

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 07:15 AM
If it can be done, it would make the cockpit even more realistic, but my opinion is that it has to be even more transparent than the top picture shows, and it has to aply to all the struts in the 'pit..
I don't know whether or not it is easy to program but it would be more realistic..

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:05 PM
Its a great idea and if implemented, should be selectable as an option under the difficulty settings.

<center> ================================================== ========================= </center>
<center>http://www.triplane.net/cyak2.jpg </center>

S!Cirx

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:09 PM
Apparently the Germans were working on transparent aluminum...yes...it makes perfect sense.

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/mech.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#FF0000";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#696969";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#696969";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>
&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>


&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>


&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:23 PM
I think this could be a good option, that one could choose in a Setup Men (Partial Ghosting or not).

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:55 PM
You are joking right?

Please tell me you are not serious and this is just a troll.

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"Courage is the price that Life exacts for granting peace."

--Amelia Earhart--

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:06 PM
ElAurens wrote:

- You are joking right?
-
- Please tell me you are not serious and this is just
- a troll.



Agree on this one.


This has already been discussed in another thread and on simhq as well.

Might be a nice option for CFS3.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:12 PM
Absolutely great idea! It`s hardly noticeable at the first glace, so there`s no loss off feeling inside the plane with too transparent sruts, yet at the same time it would be perfect for simulating peripherial vision. But I am concered about how hard it would be to do...

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:19 PM
Issy, the slim thread of credibility you have had with me was just snapped by your above post.


Unbelievable.

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"Courage is the price that Life exacts for granting peace."

--Amelia Earhart--

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:30 PM
Honestly, do you think that me or anybody else gives a damned thing about how`s my rep goes with ElAurens ?


Get yourself a girlfriend instead of wasting your time here. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim


Message Edited on 06/14/0305:33PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:35 PM
ElAurens wrote:
- You are joking right?
-
- Please tell me you are not serious and this is just
- a troll.

I asure you I'm not trolling. I have much better thngs to do with my time. I also want to point out that I wasn't aware of the other thread taking place on this forum until someone pointed it out.

And yes I am serious in that I was trying to immitate how the human eyes percieve a vertical strut when they are focussed on objects off in the distance. As I mentioned in the origianl thread over at SimHQ, I honestly do not beleive that this would ever be incorporated into FB as the rework and coding would likely be too dificult and time consuming.

My original intentions incidently were not to even post the first pic. However, after I finished making it I thought that I may be on to something. I also knew that there would be many FB fans on both sides of the fence on something like this.

For the record, if neither this or virtual pilot head movement is ever incorporated into the sim, it wouldn't bother me at all. I fly with full realism (minus CEM) with TrackIR which certainly works fine for me.

BTW, "Apparently the Germans were working on transparent aluminum...yes...it makes perfect sense.".... good one/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


<left> http://www.knology.net/~raz/IL2/raz_snoop_still.gif

</left>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:10 PM
Great effect RAZ. It makes a good effort of simulating periforal vision within the FB engine as it stands now. I'd like to see this implemented. Its a better compromise than just reducing the width of the cockpit struts which would spoil the accuracy of the cockpits

If you dont like the effect then it could be incorperated as an option which you can switch off.

MOG

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:17 PM
Some folks had called for thinned cockpit struts, but that was going to look pretty strange. There was no way I could see Oleg going for that. The effect shown is far more subtle, and as long as it is an option, wouldn't ruin the lives of the "perfect cockpit" crowd. It is almost definitely too big of a change for FB since it would require some changes to the engine as well as reworking all the struts, but it would be a good option for future engines. Someone made a comment about it being a good idea for CFS3. I agree. It would. I would like to see it in all future sims.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:29 PM
Seems a nice idea but utterly pointless. What relevant information are you losing behind those struts ? How is the extra 1 degree or so of visibility going to improve your success rate ? Look at the picture of the Yak in front of the 109. Is it helpful there ? Can't you see the Yak already ?

Let's say your ground pounding, there's no need for it there. If you're dogfighting then keeping the enemy in sight is paramount. If you're so situationally-unaware that the fact of the enemy going behind your cockpit struts totally screws your head in then you need more practise - not thinner struts. I don't mean to be-little your post Raz (not at all) as it's well presented and clear, but the enemy ARE going to "hide" behind cockpit struts at the most inconvenient moments. It's up to you to predict where they will be when they re-appear.


Lixma,

The Devil`s proudest Advocate.

oops just realised it's a La or something.


Message Edited on 06/14/0305:31PM by Lixma

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:40 PM
Thats interesting.

In all seriousness, though, if visibility is such a problem for you - turn off the cockpit.

I have never had a prob flying these planes as far as visibility is concerned.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:40 PM
Raz-- wrote:
- ElAurens wrote:
-- You are joking right?
--
-- Please tell me you are not serious and this is just
-- a troll.
-
- I asure you I'm not trolling. I have much better
- thngs to do with my time. I also want to point out
- that I wasn't aware of the other thread taking place
- on this forum until someone pointed it out.
-
- And yes I am serious in that I was trying to
- immitate how the human eyes percieve a vertical
- strut when they are focussed on objects off in the
- distance. As I mentioned in the origianl thread
- over at SimHQ, I honestly do not beleive that this
- would ever be incorporated into FB as the rework and
- coding would likely be too dificult and time
- consuming.
-
- My original intentions incidently were not to even
- post the first pic. However, after I finished
- making it I thought that I may be on to something.
- I also knew that there would be many FB fans on both
- sides of the fence on something like this.
-
- For the record, if neither this or virtual pilot
- head movement is ever incorporated into the sim, it
- wouldn't bother me at all. I fly with full realism
- (minus CEM) with TrackIR which certainly works fine
- for me.
-
- BTW, "Apparently the Germans were working on
- transparent aluminum...yes...it makes perfect
- sense.".... good one/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


'tis a good post Raz.

I can appreciate the work done in the first post, but as far as the idea goes, I am not for it. I'm not saying that having the option is a bad idea, I just wouldn't turn it on. BUT the idea of virtual head movement intrigues me. But let me develop why I think the transparent struts don't work so well...

It is my understanding that the transparency of the struts is to make up for the pilots ability to actually look around them in a real cockpit. Now, the question has to be asked: to what degree could the pilot exercised this ability? It's certainly going to differ from plane to plane. In a 109 for instance, I would argue that you are VERY limited in the amount of room you have to move around. It's tiny. There's VERY little shoulder room and the sad reality is the view in FB is probably pretty close to a real 109 (well...I it's not "sad", it's great if it is that close...just sad in this context). The 190 is a much better candidate to support the transparency because the real life pilot coulf probably move around a bit better. In a P-47, for example, the pilot could basically move all over the place and negate the existence of the front pillars. So, it wouldn't necessarily be correct to utilize this system in all planes...or any planes. And since I am a full real guy, I guess I am just against it in principle.

NOW, the virtual head movement...there's a lot that could be done with that...but probably never in FB. We can look to FPS' to see how they've handled body movement and such. One of the things that could be added is "leaning". You know in Soldier of Fortune you could "lean" around corners and such...well, I think a better solution than making things transparent is a limited, auto-centering, lateral movement of the view to the left and right while in the cockpit. And, you get a different amount of lateral movement dependent on the specific type of fighter you are in, and consistent with the amount of movement one actually has while strapped tightly into a seat.

That would be both realistic and evolutionary in terms of flight sim mechanics.

@ El. Is Issy propositioning you again?

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/mech.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#FF0000";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#696969";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#696969";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>
&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>


&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>


&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:43 PM
Nice idea and all, but not technically feasible. The view of the cockpit frame is not a 2D image that can be given transparency based on an Alpha Channel (what you are proposing).
You can make a 3D object partially transparent, but if the canopy frame is made up of multiple parts, each part assumes a opacity value and if they overlap, you see through each one partially. It would look more like an X-ray into the structure of the frame, in other words, not uniformly transparent.

Anyway, FB already has a transparent cockpit mode. There is no good reason to have to create this 'in-between version'.If you want more visibility, switch to the other view. The developers have selected views that they think that the majority of players will find useful, it is a waste of resources to add multiple variations that only change things slightly.


<center><b style="color:E6C439">BlitzPig_Sal[/b]
http://www.il2airracing.com/images/IL2AirRacing.gif (http://www.il2airracing.com/)
Fly Low... Fly Fast.</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 11:10 PM
Amazing.!! I was driving back from work today, and looked outside at the trees on the other side of 4-lane highway. Wow! I noticed that the front driver seat frame, about one foot (1/3 meter) from my head was split into two almost identical copies, and I could see through them too. Granted, there was a bit of non~transparent overlap in the middle between them.

This would be a neat *option* to see. Btw, the piece of frame was really fat too, like the Il~2 frame (oops did I forget Fw ?? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif ) , but the non-transparent overlap was very thin.

It doesn't have to be very deep shading, because you never notice it in real life unless you tell yourself to. Seeing this is so natural. Also, this double strut happens only when you look outside and focus at infinity. When you look at instruments, all both struts collapse into one solid strut.

However, if you don't wish to see binocular vision modelled, you could select the One Eyed Ace option, like if you wanna be late war Saburo Sakai trying to join formation with 16 Hellcats. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Funny though, for very thin canopy struts, they would not overlap and you would see two (2) distinctly seperated transparent struts for each one that exists. Now you see why Oleg get ulcer, and why we must put Oleg in Special FB design prison. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 11:43 PM
Bump, this is exactly what we need. I think that this is the best idea to make up for the cyclops view we have. This would do a great deal to simulate the stereoscopic view that we have in RL. Also as a further suggestion, I would like to see a function to let us have either adjustable seats or to let us sit up those last few inches in our seat to see over the nose of some aircraft.

The beatings will continue until morale improves!!

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 06:02 AM
The is the single most important thing this sim can do to bring respectability to cockpit view.

And no it wouldn't be hard to do. Heck there is a flight sim like 10 years old that can do it.

Anyone who is against this is just a lazy modeler or does not appreciate the ability to see with 2 eyes (instead of 1)

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 08:10 AM
Here's another picture to illustrate how something like this would affect the ability to visually track planes off in the distance. Please keep in mind that the plane behind the strut would be much more noticeable with movement as opposed to what is shown via this static picture.

Also, let me know if anyone would care to see how partial ghosting would appear through a different cockpit.

http://razadoo.com/il2/graphics/ghost3_1.jpg

http://razadoo.com/il2/graphics/ghost3_2.jpg


<left> http://www.knology.net/~raz/IL2/raz_snoop_still.gif

</left>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 12:00 PM
Again, your example shows the needlessness (hope that's a word) of the idea you are suggesting. Look where the aircraft behind the cockpit strut is, and where it is going. It is travelling from your left to right. How long is it going to be obscurred by the framing ? A fraction, of a fraction, of a second.

If people playing FB are having that much difficulty estimating where the target aircraft will appear on-screen after disappearing for, what 0.25 of a second then they need more practice, not thinner struts.

Look at the picture and someone tell me what incredibe manoever that the aircraft behind the left-hand strut could possibly pull for you to lose track of it before it reappears.


Lixma,

The Devil`s proudest Advocate.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 01:10 PM
Yes Lixma, fractions of a second are critical, for example in timing the snap deflection as the target exits the strut and comes into view across the front of your cockpit at 500 kph.

But, regardlless of your opinion as to the transparent struts helpfulness, one certainly could agrue it SIMULATES reality more closely.

LEXX's example of the car struts is a good everyday example.

Our brain is taking 2 images and fusing them into one, thereby making somewhat close objects (that are narrow)
appear somewhat transparent. Notice you dont actually see 2 struts, unless you start closing your eyes alternately.

Therefore, I feel that Raz--'s idea is a good one and its application in a future sim would be a step forward in realism.

Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 01:24 PM
Hmm.. Lixma - you could also be following that A/C in a tight turn or in a loop, thus having it hidden by the topstrut ?

I often experience that - don't you ?

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 01:44 PM
Raz-- wrote:
- BTW, "Apparently the Germans were working on
- transparent aluminum...yes...it makes perfect
- sense.".... good one.

Somewhat OT but you shouldn't laugh. Transparent metals have just been developed - they resemble smoked glass and have been mentioned in connection with computer monitor design:
http://www.findarticles.com/m3MKT/57_107/54251880/p1/article.jhtml
Do a Google search on 'transparent metals' and prepare to be amazed.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 02:29 PM
Widgeon wrote....."Yes Lixma, fractions of a second are critical, for example in timing the snap deflection as the target exits the strut and comes into view across the front of your cockpit at 500 kph."

All you've done is state the obvious rather than give an answer as to why thinning the struts will help a deflection shot. If a target is whizzing by from left to right at a high rate then how will it's passing behind 1 inch worth of strut somehow cripple your aim ? Again, what possible manouver can any aircraft perform whilst in this incredibly brief and tiny area ? If you miss the shot it's not because the target's flightpath was hidden for a fraction of a fraction of a second, it's because you timed it wrong.



Tuposti_Yanev wrote.....

"Hmm.. Lixma - you could also be following that A/C in a tight turn or in a loop, thus having it hidden by the topstrut ? I often experience that - don't you ?"

Yes, of course I do. I make the best educated guess I can at where the target aircraft is headed when it slips out of view. The effect is more pronounced when turning or looping tightly as you said. But think logically for a minute. In real life the pilots of these aircraft had to deal with the same problem. Do you really think in a tight turn or loop he would be craning left and right to see around cockpit struts ? I suspect he was pinned firmly in his seat due to the forces acting on him, not craning his neck/body this way and that to keep a permanent bead on the enemy.

In real life the pilots of WW2 had to deal with and work around the limitations of visibility that were peculiar to their aircraft. Same in FB. Reducing, thinning or transparentising (new word) the existing cockpit frames will not make gunnery (in particular deflection shots) any easier whatsoever due to the very nature of them. A deflection shot is an educated calculation (and in my case a prayer). You should know when to fire long before your target gets near any cockpit strut. It's a practice thing. As ever.



Lixma,

The Devil`s proudest Advocate.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 02:47 PM
Lixma:
Yes, of course I do. I make the best educated guess I can at where the target aircraft is headed when it slips out of view. The effect is more pronounced when turning or looping tightly as you said. But think logically for a minute. In real life the pilots of these aircraft had to deal with the same problem. Do you really think in a tight turn or loop he would be craning left and right to see around cockpit struts ?

Yeah - perhaps you are right on this one - if the G-Forces are excessive, lowering or raising your head (not left/right but up/down) would probably be very difficult.

But often when you setup your attack OR if you are keeping your eye on some escortees - the struts prevents you from flying the path you'd PREFER to fly. Furthermore I think that everybody agrees that a real pilots view is MUCH better than what you can put on a monitor.

The question is - does this simulator simulate a series of machines - with combat as a nice option? - or does it simulate aerial combat ?

If the goal is to simulate aerial combat (I think it is) - then we have to realize that aerial combat are fought by man/machine units - not just machines.

Therefore some allowances in the modelling of the machines should be made to accommodate the man part of the unit, at least that is how I see things.

Nobody ever made semi-transparent cockpit-struts in WWII - but then again - one eyed pilot cadets had a bad habit of being dropped out of flight-school http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 02:56 PM
The following is from a post I made on a similar subject in another thread this morning.. I dint want to recopy it all.

I disagree ....I think that if you start making things like tranparent or semitransparent struts where do you stop? That gives an unfair advantage to the guy flying the plane with the semitransparent struts. To do that on every plane would just take away from the realism and the purpose for the pit in the first place. Lets face it..the FW-190 didnt have the greatest visability.... it is a fact so why ignore it and model in something like ...semitransparent struts. IMO it would take away from the whole authenticity of this sim. Some would say that the current cockpit model does the same thing but IMO they havent proven thier case to the developer so it is moot. Look at the cockpit of the P-47 with that bar down the middle (D-10 & D-22) .... Thats the way it was on those models so why change it? It bites but hey...... That's why they came out with the D-27. Now was there a FW-190 made with a better view? Was that one of the improvements on the Ta-152 in reality? If so I am sure it will be incorporated..if not then it should be reflected. I fly mostly out of pit anyway when online and alternate when offline....but I wouldnt want a thing to be changed about the view system in this sim with the exception of perhaps a side to side motion view of say a few inches left, up or right. SHIFT+TAB+F1 for move left and SHIFT+ALT+F1 for move right (for those plane where (SHIFT+F1 is not modelled in a down to the right motion) SHIFT+CTRL+F1 for move up....although the upward movement would probably be limited by the canopy so maybe that one is a no go but the left & right seem doable. I have no idea about the work involved in setting that up. What might appear to be a few hours work from our standpoint could be something that could take weeks on each plane I dont know. Sort of like the 90 second CGI footage that takes weeks to setup. In the meantime i will just fly the plane and enjoy it. For all we know the manhours neede to do that in each plane could be tremendous and prohibitive..and doing it in some planes and not in others wouldnt be fair. It seems that the SHIFT+F1 as it is currently in the LW fighters and the Jugs has the pilot moving forward and slightly down to the right to line up his eyes with the sight..... seems accurate to me. The same in the Jugs. You notice in straight view the reticle is actually off center in both planes. I see nothing wrong with it as it is but the added views would be nice. Just no transparent (or semi transparent) ANYTHING other than glass.

&lt;script>color="#B22222";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;</script>

&lt;script>color="#004477";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-4].bgColor=color;a[a.length-5].bgColor=co
lor;a[a.length-8].bgColor=color</script>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/survivors/images/T42-103831.jpg'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

Message Edited on 06/15/0309:58AM by Bearcat99

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:15 PM
Bearcat summed up a real concern about this in his opening sentence....

"I think that if you start making things like tranparent or semi-transparent struts where do you stop?"

I quite enjoy the challenge of looking through a cockpit when flying and while the transparency option is well intended, it is just a cloudier version of having no cockpit at all.

If anyone wants to see something revealing, watch a track made with people dogfighting in both "cockpit on" mode, and one with "cockpit off". Watch the movement of the aircraft as they jostle for visibility and advantage. The "cockpit on" replays show a far more realistic depiction as the pilots need to manouver their aircraft far more to keep a bandit in sight.

Lixma,

The Devil`s proudest Advocate.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:17 PM
Raz-- mistakenly mis-named his thread - it should have been called "Suggestion to make cockpit struts appear less realistic." /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But to compensate for human binocular (stereoscopic) vision by making those struts slightly thinner would be a good idea and would made the game a little more playable.
Even if it is NOT "historically accurate" as far as cockpit modeling is concern.

IMHO



AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:21 PM
> "I think that if you start making things like tranparent or semi-transparent struts where do you stop?"

The answer is: Never !

The quest for an accurate aerial combat simulation - depicting the man/machine symbiosis - that can be delivered on average computers will probably (hopefully!) never stop

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

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:40 PM
The only way something like this could be modeled correctly and fairly would be if it were modeled to a command not just imbedded in the viewing system like the CTRL+F1 views. Put the command on a key and set it up so that there was a limit on the view...say 2-6 seconds max everytime you hit the key (assignable of course) with the duration adjustable in the conf.ini file but ONLY for the durations mentioned with a delay of the same duration before it can be used again. This way it would be work!! Like it would have been in reality to get that view..especially if you were going aginst G forces and your head was shaking and you are trying to stay steady.. If it were always on say it would definitely take away from the sim IMO.

&lt;script>color="#B22222";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;</script>

&lt;script>color="#004477";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-4].bgColor=color;a[a.length-5].bgColor=co
lor;a[a.length-8].bgColor=color</script>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/survivors/images/T42-103831.jpg'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

Message Edited on 06/15/0310:42AM by Bearcat99

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:49 PM
No Text

Message Edited on 06/15/0311:04AM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:51 PM
Tuposti wrote:

The quest for an accurate aerial combat simulation -
- depicting the man/machine symbiosis - that can be
- delivered on average computers will probably
- (hopefully!) never stop



I'll 2nd that. If we can agree that we like to fly with the cockpit on, and want the experience to be "real", why then not try to model normal human pysiology.


I was just testing the 'strut problem' while driving my vehicle. Try driving with one eye, and not moving your head!

I love the cockpits and wouldnt fly without them, but with time and technology they will improve, thats what throwing around ideas like this is all about.

Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 04:01 PM
Tuposti wrote:


The quest for an accurate aerial combat simulation -
- depicting the man/machine symbiosis - that can be
- delivered on average computers will probably
- (hopefully!) never stop



I'll 2nd that.
Why not try to model normal human physiology?

Try driving your vehicle with one eye, and no body movements other than head rotation.

I love the cockpits, wouldnt fly any other way, but if it were not for Track ir, I certainly wouldnt be enjoying this sim as much. Trackir simulates real head movement in the cockpit.

I think thats why we throw ideas like this around, make it more real-- make it more enjoyable.


Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 04:05 PM
If your only concerned about the forward view from inside the cockpit on your monitor, you're only considering 30% of the picture of an actual WW2 pilots view in any WW2 cockpit.

Transparent cockpit structures would only be an attempt to add realism through making up for the other 70% of the view(pheripheral and side to side) in an actual cockpit that can't be modeled on a monitor.

Air combat is not like looking at a small picture in front of you on your monitor, whether in cockpit view or otherwise. It is a 360 degree exercise in vision.

Currently the cockpit view in IL-2/FB as well as other sims do a poor job at simulating this vision.

Like many of us stated when the sim was first released and we brought up these issues of cockpit modeling, currently the cockpit view is similar to flying a WW2 warplane with a cardboard box taped to your head.

Until a better visual system other than a monitor is available, it's my view that the modeling should attempt to address some of these differences between reality and simulation.

There is no doubt that in that regard we have a long way to go before these cockpits and the view in our sims resemble the same ones the actual pilots of these warplanes had.

In my view, transparent cockpit struts are a good start. But are certainly not the whole answer, or last word on realism anymore than the current cramped foward view we have in the FB cockpit.

Although, the picture itself is realistic looking many parts of the puzzle are missing, even beyond the cockpit modeling questions of certain FM's of late and the use of TrackIR, etc.....




Message Edited on 06/15/0311:20AM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 04:28 PM
Great Idea !!


http://mitglied.lycos.de/kubanskiloewe/110missing.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 04:39 PM
I also think it's important to remember that due to these current visual limitations in sims compared to reality. Many pilots make for this lack of visibility through the maneuverability of the view through the maneuverability of their aircraft.

I think this is a good reason as to why planes with better maneuverability tend to do better in sims, than they did in reality.

Until this visibility descrepancy is addressed either through better view technology or within the software itself, we will be left with a less than ideal and realistic situation from a visibility standpoint, no matter how one models the cockpit structure.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 05:10 PM
James Gang wrote...

"Many pilots make for this lack of visibility through the maneuverability of the view through the maneuverability of their aircraft.

I think this is a good reason as to why planes with better maneuverability tend to do better in sims, than they did in reality"

Unmitigated waffle.

Show me an aircraft so un-manouverable that it can't be nudged slightly to see past a cockpit strut.

Talk about hokey theories.


Lixma,

The Devil`s proudest Advocate.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 05:37 PM
Lixma wrote:

"Unmitigated waffle.

Show me an aircraft so un-manouverable that it can't be nudged slightly to see past a cockpit strut.

Talk about hokey theories.


Lixma,

The Devil`s proudest Advocate."

-----------

Unmitigated waffle?

Hokey theories?

When one is facing a limited view situation in ACM, he uses the maneuverability of his aircraft(BFM) to to keep is view and gun orientation towards the enemy(lose sight, lose the fight).

This is why historically and in sims T & B aircraft have typically dominated the action, and is one reason why furballs are so popular. Another reason for the prevalence of furballs is the lack of realistic consequences so evident in reality but completely missing in sims.

This is apparent. I can't make it any simpler.

If you want more realism in sims, you can't ignore these differences between sims and reality. Nor can you just discount them as 'Unmitigated waffle and hokey theories'. And it involves much more than just 'nudging ones aircraft slightly to see past a cockpit strut'.

You can find some interesting 'unmitigated waffle and hokey theories' about the terms and descriptions above if you will visit the 87th's website(click link below). They have put many aspects of realistic basic flight and air combat tactics into an easy to understand format.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mindmeld/tactics.htm#BFM%20vs%20ACM

You also visit SimHQ and Andy Bush's many articles and forum concerning the similar topic as they relate to realistic air combat.



Message Edited on 06/15/0312:56PM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 05:43 PM
I'd like to to thank everyone here who commented both for and against this concept that I've presented. I'm admonished by my friend Ming over at SimHQ that continued posts of these pictures may be interpreted as a form of harasment towards Oleg. I'd like to quote myself from the SimHQ thread.

"... my intentions were never to harass or insult Oleg in any shape, form, or fashion. I'm simply presenting an idea out for discussion both here and at ORR. In both threads I've seen FB enthusiasts who are on both sides of the issue discuss this very intelligently.

I will however desist posting more examples since there are no requests to see this in another cockpit. As mentioned previously, I have no false hopes that this would be incorporated into FB. As such, I agree that these posting should now come to an end less Oleg feels I am in fact harassing him or as you point out, less I set a bad example.

As far as e-mailing Oleg directly, I could have done that instead of posting here and at ORR. But I really wanted to know what other FB simmers thought of such a proposition. As far as I can tell, there seems to be a 2/3rds for and a 1/3rd against this. I will nonetheless e-mail Oleg a carefully worded letter with links. Maybe there's hope for something like this in a future sim."

Raz

<left> http://www.knology.net/~raz/IL2/raz_snoop_still.gif

</left>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 06:01 PM
Interesting idea, but perhaps you should promote it for the Next Sim. I think its kinda late now for FB. And yes it would strongly affect planes like the Il~2 with HUGE canopy struts, and less affect planes with bubble canopies. Even so, a modelling struts with binocular vision should still leave bubble canopies with a great advantage.

Driving while staring at my window strut the other day made me realize how much even a massive thick strut is split into two uniformly transparent pieces , with a very thin solid overlap. The transparent images were uniform in transparency, and did not have a gradation in transparency, althoug Raz your pic would be a way of approximating that with one strut, but with perhaps more of a performance hit.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 06:07 PM
James Gang wrote.....

"When one is facing a limited view situation in ACM, he uses the maneuverability of his aircraft(BFM) to to keep is view and gun orientation towards the enemy.
This is why historically and in sims T & B aircraft have typically dominated the action, and is one reason why furballs are so popular. Another reason for the prevalence of furballs is the lack of realistic consequences so evident in reality but completely missing in sims."

Again, utter nonsense James.

So in which "historical" theatre did turn-n-burn planes dominate ? Europe ? Pacific ?

Online, these turn fighters do dominate, purely for the reason that it is more instantly gratifying to play this way and quicker to learn and/or master.

Earlier, however you posted this re.visibility....

"I think this is a good reason as to why planes with better maneuverability tend to do better in sims, than they did in reality."

So within the space of a few column inches, James you have contradicted yourself totally. One minute turn-fighters didn't fare too well, the next they dominated the action (historicaly according to you).

I swear you've never read (or at least understood) a history book in your life or you wouldn't come out with this nonsense.

Waffle i'm afraid, James.



Lixma,

The Devil`s proudest Advocate.

Message Edited on 06/15/0306:19PM by Lixma

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 06:24 PM
I can't believe there are people who actually think this is a bad idea.

Shame on you.

Trying to saw "who cares if an airplane is behind there, and this would be "unrealistic" or "this would be a momentous effort" are some of the saddest and mose baseless defenses I have ever heard.

Unless you are handicapped, how many eyes do you have? 1 or 2? Ok now that most of you agree that you have 2 eyes we can continue. Ok, what is cockpit view? It is a monitor restricted, point of view on a swivel, unocular (meaning simulating a pilot with 1 eye) representation of what a pilot sees.

And you could possibly disagree on a solution that makes the above mentioned cockpit view restriction more realistic?

Look at something out your window (cockpit) and then hold your hand out towards the window (strut) and see how it looks with only 1 eye open (outdated and current model) compared to 2 eyes open (proposed).

This whole situation is Q.E.D. and should be signed sealed and delivered to Oleg for implementation as soon as possible.

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 06:33 PM
RBJ,

So where shall we focus our new virtual binocular vision in the game ? If my real eyes are focused on a bandit on the computer screen at 1k away how will my interior be rendered. As a double image ? This is how it is in real life. But then my eyes drift to my instruments to check fuel or whatever. What then ? Two ghostly sets of instruments ? How will the computer know where I want to focus ?

People seem to want binocular vision for the framing around the cockpit but not for the instruments.


Lixma,

The Devil`s proudest Advocate.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 06:47 PM
Bearcat99 wrote:
- The only way something like this could be modeled
- correctly and fairly would be if it were modeled to
- a command not just imbedded in the viewing system
- like the CTRL+F1 views. Put the command on a key and
- set it up so that there was a limit on the
- view...say 2-6 seconds max everytime you hit the key
- (assignable of course) with the duration adjustable
- in the conf.ini file but ONLY for the durations
- mentioned with a delay of the same duration before
- it can be used again. This way it would be work!!
- Like it would have been in reality to get that
- view..especially if you were going aginst G forces
- and your head was shaking and you are trying to stay
- steady.. If it were always on say it would
- definitely take away from the sim IMO.


So your own bino vision only works for a few seconds at a time...bummer, you should see an eye doctor about that.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 06:54 PM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- Interesting idea, but perhaps you should promote it
- for the Next Sim. I think its kinda late now for FB.
- And yes it would strongly affect planes like the
- Il~2 with HUGE canopy struts, and less affect planes
- with bubble canopies. Even so, a modelling struts
- with binocular vision should still leave bubble
- canopies with a great advantage.
-
- Driving while staring at my window strut the other
- day made me realize how much even a massive thick
- strut is split into two uniformly transparent pieces
- , with a very thin solid overlap. The transparent
- images were uniform in transparency, and did not
- have a gradation in transparency, althoug Raz your
- pic would be a way of approximating that with one
- strut, but with perhaps more of a performance hit.

I agree 100%. This was and has been a next sim idea. We were discussing canopy member full transparency or translucense back in IL-2 hoping something might be tried for FB.

I don't think most detractors have ever tried the window strut test in a car. It really does give you an idea of how bino vision works. It's pretty simple. While sitting at a light, close one eye, then open it and try the other. Notice how little is obscured when both eyes are open. When you are driving you also look around obstructions by slight head or body movements. Does this mean the detractors think our bino vision is "unrealistic" looks awful because of fuzzy/double image foreground and we should turn it off? What a hoot.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 07:27 PM
Lixma wrote:
- RBJ,
-
- So where shall we focus our new virtual binocular
- vision in the game ? If my real eyes are focused on
- a bandit on the computer screen at 1k away how will
- my interior be rendered. As a double image ? This is
- how it is in real life. But then my eyes drift to my
- instruments to check fuel or whatever. What then ?
- Two ghostly sets of instruments ? How will the
- computer know where I want to focus ?
-
- People seem to want binocular vision for the framing
- around the cockpit but not for the instruments.


You are making it more complicated than it needs to be.

For now, all that needs to be done is what Raz showed in his picture. Except I would make it even more transparent. What the artist would do would look around the cockpit and make cockpit edges transparent, the degree to which is determined by how vertical the edge is. Just the bars in the cockpit, and perhaps a little bit of the edges of the cockpit in the front and rear. Also a little bit of the horizontal bars could have some tranparency, because it is so easy in real life for a pilot to nod his head up or down to see around such obstacles.

You saying "what if I look at the guages.." Well if you look at them you look at them. They won't be any different. What you look at is what you look at and it is in focus. Unless you have some pressing need to examine the inside edge of the cockpit bar you won't notice a thing wrong, except you will have this new feeling of freedom. When you look straight up in the FW, you will see much less of the bar bacause you are looking past it.

There is no need to wear 3D goggles, half your refresh rate, and get a headache. Instead, there is a simpler, more elegant solution.

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 07:50 PM
RBJ wrote

"...because it is so easy in real life for a pilot to nod his head up or down to see around such obstacles."

When you are flying straight and level yes it's easy. In the midst of combat when the Gs start building up I would have thought head movement was minimal.

If making the cockpit struts transparent is deemed more realistic then how do we account for the real life pilot's comments about visibility in their own aircraft. If these pilots never had occasion to comment on the visibility (good or bad) from their cockpits then this would be a no brainer. As it is, some aircraft did have visibility issues and this sim (or game or whatever) depicts that very well.

Removing the struts (effectively) is just removing a factor that real life pilots had to deal with daily. Look at the numerous photos of the 190's forward view in the cockpit. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that the view is anything other than very limited ? (even with the option to move your head)

Making the struts transparent is just a crutch for people who can't deal with aircraft disappearing from view for a fraction of a second.



Lixma,

The Devil`s proudest Advocate.

Message Edited on 06/15/0307:52PM by Lixma

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 08:30 PM
Lixma:

"Making the struts transparent is just a crutch for people who can't deal with aircraft disappearing from view for a fraction of a second. "

Oh - I didn't know I couldn't deal with that. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The limited view of some cockpits over others, was a RL challenge, agreed.

Cockpits are precise in angles and proportions, but they are modelled in a 2D projection for one eye - ergo the net result is that they will be even more restrictive than their RL counterparts.

Add to that the cardbox view (nice analogy) and it is obvious that the system is off somehow (now now - FB is the BEST EVER. We are just trying to make it better - the only way we can - share our thoughts with each other and the developers)...

But if you think that the whole issue is moot - why participate with such ferocity ?

Combat in the air was fought man-machine vs. man-machine. All precision and efforts are directed at the machine - so the "man" part is surely missing (spot todays double entendre there, and know it was not intentional /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )

I love FB - can't wait to see what the future brings

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 08:56 PM
Lixma wrote:
- Making the struts transparent is just a crutch for
- people who can't deal with aircraft disappearing
- from view for a fraction of a second.

Not that I take personal offense, but I do however think that this is an unfair statement to those who like this proposal. I really don't see this as a crutch. My thinking on this concept is to overcome the limitation of the view system. Currently there are no means to compensate not only for binocular vision, but head movement beyond that of a rotating cycloptic sphere suspended in a single spot.

In reference to MachineII's comments from page 1, even in tight cockpits where there is no room for shoulder movement, I'm sure pilots would tilt their heads to peer around strut surfaces. In the medical field we refer to this head movement as 'lateral cervical flexion'. In layman's terms, this means to tilt your head to the side as to bring your ear closer to your shoulder.


<left> http://www.knology.net/~raz/IL2/raz_snoop_still.gif

</left>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 09:39 PM
Lixma wrote:
- Making the struts transparent is just a crutch for
- people who can't deal with aircraft disappearing
- from view for a fraction of a second.

Have you even flown the 190? Enemy AC can spend a very long time hidden behind the strut. For example when overtaking a slightly slower aircraft from below it can be something like 30 seconds. At times they will break in fashion that keeps them completely in struts the whole time. After that you have no idea where they are. If it was a "fraction of a second" then this would indeed be a non issue. Other aircraft also have the problem to varying degrees.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 10:03 PM
Guys, and Lixma, be aware that I am talking about making two (2) semi~transparent struts, not one. This is going to allow greater vision, but will also be very irritating and still *in your face* as canopy struts were in real life.

If you think massive solid Fw strut is bad now, just think of two (2) of them side by side.

Modelling binocular vision with two struts is ~not~ an easy way out, as it will clutter the view more with semi~transparent images. This is very different idea than Raz's single variable transparent strut which only an apporoximation of binocular vision, and the variable transparency may cause more performance hit.

And for the whiners who will complain about two (2) massive struts, do what real pilots did and find an aircraft with bubble canopy. Also, consider that very thin struts on some planes will be totally distinct, giving two non~overlapping semi~transparent struts.

RBJ is correct! The struts can be very transparent, but they will still make you wish you had a bubble canopy. Alas, there will always be whiners.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 10:13 PM
But any overlap of strut images should be most non~transparent and you cannot see through that. I guess I should mention this again.

Hold your arm in the air and look at the far wall, looking past your wrist. What do you see? Fascinating stuff.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 10:30 PM
Lixma wrote:

"So in which "historical" theatre did turn-n-burn planes dominate ? Europe ? Pacific ?"

-----------

The sim theater.

In reality the opposite was true. This is what led to the natural progression that brought us high speed monoplanes in WW2 and faster and faster pursuit aircraft, up until the Jet age.

Turn and burn is a result of inexperience and the nature of the lack of visibility modeled in sims, rather than a viable and realistic tactic in and of itself of which the Lufbery circle is a part.

Did you really have that much trouble comprehending what was written? Did you bother to read the rest of what I wrote and visit the 87th's website?

Never mind. I wont waste anymore time.



Message Edited on 06/15/0305:44PM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 11:07 PM
So now Lixma has resorted to the "If you've lost the point, resort to calling it a crutch philosophy"

We are talking about making the cockpit bars look like when someone with 2 eyes looks beyond them. Knock Knock: who's there? Realism.

If a bullet came into the cockpit and took out one of the pilots eyes then the view could change back to what it looks like in IL2/FB currently. I think that would be neat.

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 11:07 PM
James Gang....your words....

This is why historically AND in sims T & B aircraft have typically dominated the action

My emphasis.

Clearly you have no idea what garbage you are coming out with. Sim theatre indeed. You are beyond idiocy. Creep back under your rock and ponder why you are such a mess.

Moving swiftly on.....

I said..."Making the struts transparent is just a crutch for people who can't deal with aircraft disappearing from view for a fraction of a second"

This sounds a little harsher than I intended. My apologies to those I inadvertedly offended.

What I was trying to get across was that even if the cockpit struts were made transparent or not it wouldn't help anyone hitting a deflection shot as the target flashed from one side of the screen to another. As the FW-190 as currently modelled in FB gets most of it's kills from high speed snap shots then it will obviously get the more prominent billing in this discussion. And I make no excuses for the size of the cockpit's frame, it is erm...sturdy to say the least. But the times i've flown it, it has never been the case of the cockpit getting in the way that's making me miss. It's because i'm crap in it.

RedHarvest wrote.....

"Enemy AC can spend a very long time hidden behind the strut. For example when overtaking a slightly slower aircraft from below it can be something like 30 seconds. At times they will break in fashion that keeps them completely in struts the whole time. After that you have no idea where they are"

I'm trying to picture this scenario. You are in a FW-190 creeping up on an enemy from it's low 6 ? And you let it out of your sight for 30 seconds ? 30 seconds ? And then you find he's broke and gone defensive whilst you had him hidden behind your cockpit frame ? Without mentioning your tactical savvy here, why do you think the enemy broke away ? Perhaps he checked six ? Why ? Because the view out of the back is even worse on most a/c and he was aware it was a blind spot. So he made sure his six was clear at regular intervals. If you let the opposition sit in your blind area for thirty seconds then you are asking for it.

My point through all of this is not to slam Raz's idea for the sake of it but to show that it won't make deflection shots any easier. These reqire precise timing and that comes with practice. Quite a few people here think it will make them a better 190 pilot. Wrong. Practise will. And then some.


Lixma,

The Devil`s proudest Advocate.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 11:32 PM
James Gang scrawled.....

"Turn and burn is a result of inexperience and the nature of the lack of visibility modeled in sims, rather than a viable and realistic tactic in and of itself of which the Lufbery circle is a part.

So when i'm dogfighting in the F4 it`s because of my inexperience and the lack of visibility. Well you learn something new everyday.

Lufbery circles....?

You have now reached a higher plateau of comedy than I am equipped to comprehend. You are good. Damned good.


Lixma,

The Devil`s proudest Advocate.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 11:44 PM
Lixma wrote:

"James Gang scrawled.....

"Turn and burn is a result of inexperience and the nature of the lack of visibility modeled in sims, rather than a viable and realistic tactic in and of itself of which the Lufbery circle is a part.

So when i'm dogfighting in the F4 it`s because of my inexperience and the lack of visibility. Well you learn something new everyday.

Lufbery circles....?

You have now reached a higher plateau of comedy than I am equipped to comprehend. You are good. Damned good.


Lixma,

The Devil`s proudest Advocate."

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


Pardon me.

I was under the impression you understood the basics of air combat.

http://www.acepilots.com/wwi/us_lufbery.html

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 11:52 PM
James, I spent a good year flying Red Baron II (the Dynamix one ?). I know full well what a lufbery is. Why you would include a purely defensive tactical position in a sentence about the non-tactic (apparently) of turn-n-burn is best left to you and Google.



Lixma,

The Devil`s proudest Advocate.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 11:53 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- Get yourself a girlfriend instead of wasting your
- time here.



Judging buy our post counts I'd say you should follow your own advice!

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


Oh and lets leave my lady friend out of this, she doesn't understand all this fuss over airplanes anyway...

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /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>.
"Courage is the price that Life exacts for granting peace."

--Amelia Earhart--

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 11:53 PM
Quit trying to change the subject. Lixma is so desperate now he is trying to get the thread locked.

This is a wonderful idea and the first time anyone has took the time to show what it would look like in FB.

Here's to Oleg implementing it in a future patch.

Then , in the next sim, it can be implemented in a more dynamic way (for example, top bar in FW is more transparent when you look straight up but if you rotate 90% it becomes more opaque.

Of course the center part of ther strut will always be opaque, so there is no "getting rid of the strut" argument. We are talking semi-transparent edges folks.

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 12:03 AM
I thought you flew with cockpit off RBJ ? Why the sudden interest ?

As for my desperation...thanks for your concern. Duly noted.



Lixma,

The Devil`s proudest Advocate.

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 12:09 AM
Hey - this isn't about the FW190 is it ?

I thought it was was about the view-system in generel...

Lixma... please u are straying of into personal insults, that's very OT - tell ya what, open up another thread in GD - I'll post in it and you can call me whatever you want until they lock it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Other than that - I concur with the views expressed by Mr. RBJ in his above posting

I'll broaden the toast tho:

Here's to Oleg and the sim to come - If it's only half the kick in the sim worlds six that Il2 was, I'll be a happy man for years to come... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 01:52 AM
<img src=http://www.dausettrails.com/mulemouth.jpg>

<center> <img src=http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/165583/Hellcatsig.jpg> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 02:03 AM
Ick....


http://bollox.freewebspace.com/images/toothpaste.jpg


Lixma,

The Devil`s proudest Advocate.

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 02:19 AM
OMG..James,

Reading an intenet web-site on fighter tactics hardly makes you an expert.

Flying a simulator such as this doesn;t qualify you as a pilot.

For God's sake...quit trying to pose as something you are not.

RBJ, for someone who has advocated flying cockpit off you really seem like a troll to be here attacking a critic of the ultra-realistic "invisible" strut.

Sorry to bud in on your handling of James Lixma...his pretending to be a pilot is funny.

<center>http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/1NewHelos1.gif
<center><font face="verdana" size="1">Whop!-Whop!


&lt;script language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script>
&lt;script>newIcon('single','http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/Helos.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 02:44 AM
USAFHelos wrote:

"OMG..James,

Reading an intenet web-site on fighter tactics hardly makes you an expert.

Flying a simulator such as this doesn;t qualify you as a pilot.

For God's sake...quit trying to pose as something you are not.

RBJ, for someone who has advocated flying cockpit off you really seem like a troll to be here attacking a critic of the ultra-realistic "invisible" strut.

Sorry to bud in on your handling of James Lixma...his pretending to be a pilot is funny."

-------


I never stated that I am a pilot in reality.

It doesn't mean I lost my brain along the way.

Nor was I aware that was a requirement to fly IL-2/FB, post on this website, or study air combat history and theory.

It appears that you seem to think this website is a place for you to promote yourself and degrade others, rather than a place to talk about positive and negative aspects of this simulation and the air combat tactics that go along with it.

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 03:02 AM
(nada)

----------------------------------
=38=Backfire
Starshii Leytenant - 38. OIAE


Message Edited on 06/15/0309:37PM by Backfire_22

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 04:11 AM
James_Gang wrote:
-
- It appears that you seem to think this website is a
- place for you to promote yourself and degrade
- others, rather than a place to talk about positive
- and negative aspects of this simulation and the air
- combat tactics that go along with it.



Really James?

What about this post here?

James_Gang wrote:
-
- Pardon me.
-
- I was under the impression you understood the basics
- of air combat.

You sure like to wave your finger around at everyone huh?

<center>http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/1NewHelos1.gif
<center><font face="verdana" size="1">Whop!-Whop!


&lt;script language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script>
&lt;script>newIcon('single','http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/Helos.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 04:15 AM
Lixma wrote:

"Lufbery circles....?"

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 04:16 AM
You have obviously never flown against Lixma and his 109.

<center>http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/1NewHelos1.gif
<center><font face="verdana" size="1">Whop!-Whop!


&lt;script language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script>
&lt;script>newIcon('single','http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/Helos.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 04:22 AM
I don't remember his name from the game.

That doesn't mean I haven't flown against him.

At 5000+ online IL-2/FB enemy aircraft kills, I sometimes forget the opponents.

I racked up over 1000 online enemy aircraft kills flying 90% German planes on the check six ladder in two months back in Mar/Apr 2002.



Message Edited on 06/15/0311:27PM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 04:31 AM
James_Gang wrote:
- I don't remember his name from the game.
-
- That doesn't mean I haven't flown against him.
-
- At 5000+ online IL-2/FB enemy aircraft kills, I
- sometimes forget the opponents.
-
- I racked up over 1000 online enemy aircraft kills
- flying 90% German planes on the check six ladder in
- two months back in Mar/Apr 2002.


ROFL.

<center>http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/1NewHelos1.gif
<center><font face="verdana" size="1">Whop!-Whop!


&lt;script language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script>
&lt;script>newIcon('single','http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/Helos.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 04:34 AM
"cough" "cough" Bull$%*#! "cough"

I love how you say all that with a straight face.





<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/mech.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#FF0000";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#696969";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#696969";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>
&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>


&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>


&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>


&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>



Message Edited on 06/15/0311:35PM by MachineII

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 04:47 AM
I've been killed more than a few times also.

That's alot of time flying this sim at HL in the past 2+ years. And 95% of these kills occured flying on other hosts servers, on their settings. My DSL connection doesn't allow me to host. Although when IL-2 was first released, I was on 56k dial up and could host.

If you count other sims before IL-2, my online kill count is quite a bit more. I've flown under a few different call signs.

No special talent, just alot of hard work against many a good sim pilot, and a few that weren't so good.

What did you think, I spent all my time here?



Message Edited on 06/15/0311:53PM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 04:55 AM
James_Gang wrote:
- I don't remember his name from the game.
-
- That doesn't mean I haven't flown against him.
-
- At 5000+ online IL-2/FB enemy aircraft kills, I
- sometimes forget the opponents.
-
- I racked up over 1000 online enemy aircraft kills
- flying 90% German planes on the check six ladder in
- two months back in Mar/Apr 2002.
-
-

Last week, it was "close to 10,000 air kills". If we wait some more weeks, where will it be? 2?

Oh, and havimg being killed 5,000 times, I do not remember a James_Gang ever killing me. Strange?


More seriously, give you HL nickname and come fly in servers where Lixma is for instance.
I'm not even saying you're a bad pilot, you're probably better than I am.

But

Anybody can claim anything.

As for the C6 ladder, it doesn't prove anything. Ever checked the first ranks of it? Looked at the stats? Found something strange about them. People launched coops where they were alone against the AI, and it would count for the ladder....




<Center>



http://www.wingman-fr.net/fzg/forum/images/smiles/sm167.gif

1.5/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos
(but working on it /i/smilies/16x16_robot-tongue.gif - Woot! 7.25 points awarded make 8.75/10)

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 05:04 AM
Yes if you count other sims, as well as IL-2/FB, 10,000 would be a close estimate. And I'm sure somebody out there has got even more.

I'm not here to promote my kill record, but there's a good chance I've flown against most here at one time or another depending upon how long you've flown the sim. There are many games at HL everynight. So of course I don't get to them all.

BTW, I fly under a number of different call signs and I have flown for a few different squads, that I prefer not to reveal because there's no sense adding fuel to the fire. I am taking a break in FB currently until the patch is released.

You're free to think what you like.

And remember it's just a game. It don't mean nothing.

Enough about me. This topics about making the cockpit struts appear more realistic.







Message Edited on 06/16/0312:16AM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 10:00 AM
Yet another thread in ORR has gone seriously OT and descended to the usual chest thumping BS that is making alot of people heartily sick.

10/10 for consistency guys

<fontsize=2>Unofficial IL-2 Community FAQ (http://mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm)
<fontsize=2>Hunter82's Tech Pages (http://mudmovers.com/tech/tech_pages.htm)