PDA

View Full Version : change Fw 190 forward view - the poll



XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 02:45 PM
Recently, a study has been done, related to Fw 190 forward view, as modeled in Forgotten Battles.

You can see the study results here:
http://www.triplane.net/restoration_intro.htm

With more detail about forward view here:
http://www.triplane.net/190view.htm

I have started a discussion in this thread, and even Oleg posted his opinion:
http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zuucp

In the thread and the study, some evidence has been presented. Normally, this should be the end of any discussion. However, it turned out some people see one thing and other see another. Some don't even consider it important.

So, here's the poll finally. Please use this thread only for voting, discuss the issue in another thread. Thank you.
----------------------------------------------

Regarding the current forward view in Fw 190, as modeled in FB, and the mentioned study, what is your opinion:

A) Current forward view of Fw 190, as modeled in FB, NEEDS REWORKING, as the study suggests.


B) The issue is irrelevant or doesn't interest me.


C) Current forward view of Fw 190, as modeled in FB, DOES NOT NEED REWORKING. Everyrthing is fine as it is now.




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

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 02:45 PM
Recently, a study has been done, related to Fw 190 forward view, as modeled in Forgotten Battles.

You can see the study results here:
http://www.triplane.net/restoration_intro.htm

With more detail about forward view here:
http://www.triplane.net/190view.htm

I have started a discussion in this thread, and even Oleg posted his opinion:
http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zuucp

In the thread and the study, some evidence has been presented. Normally, this should be the end of any discussion. However, it turned out some people see one thing and other see another. Some don't even consider it important.

So, here's the poll finally. Please use this thread only for voting, discuss the issue in another thread. Thank you.
----------------------------------------------

Regarding the current forward view in Fw 190, as modeled in FB, and the mentioned study, what is your opinion:

A) Current forward view of Fw 190, as modeled in FB, NEEDS REWORKING, as the study suggests.


B) The issue is irrelevant or doesn't interest me.


C) Current forward view of Fw 190, as modeled in FB, DOES NOT NEED REWORKING. Everyrthing is fine as it is now.




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

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 02:48 PM
IBTL /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif - if it's really off by 40% in FB, I'd vote 'A'



Message Edited on 09/04/0301:50PM by AchimT

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 02:50 PM
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I am asking you of what you think, after seeing the study results. Take a look at the evidence presented and answer.

A, B or C ?

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

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 03:01 PM
well, as Oleg has told the Fw cockpit‚¬īs 3D model is >99% correct, but in the real world the refraction phenomena of heavily angled thick frontal armor glass with high optical density optically lowers the BAR and the struts makes thinner.
So please rework the 3D internal model to match the reality.

btw Hristos, is that you on the sig? A futball player?



<center>http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/pictures/sig_il2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 03:38 PM
B ;

doesnt interest me,

because Oleg said he isnt changing it........

http://www.goodbrush.com/gallery/albums/sketches/downshot_samurai.thumb.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:13 PM
A) gets my vote


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:17 PM
A gets my vote. Lower the bar would seem to be in order. Raising the sight could also address the issue somewhat although the former would be the best solution.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:19 PM
A) !

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:48 PM
A)

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:56 PM
A)

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 05:07 PM
A)! /i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif

I/JG54_SerpentBlade
http://jackly.cpgl.net/il2

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 05:14 PM
B Seems good enough for me (But then I don't play online much.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Fix the elevator response instead.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 05:34 PM
A clearly.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 05:40 PM
I vote : A !!!!!!!!!


JaBo_HH--Raptor

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 05:42 PM
A

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 05:47 PM
Eh?.....Oh A sure,I vote A.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 05:53 PM
A) I vote

Greatings

Bio

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 06:07 PM
A !!!!!


yes A

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 06:16 PM
A

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 06:27 PM
A /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 06:56 PM
A

JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 07:19 PM
A

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 07:35 PM
Frickin' A

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
09-04-2003, 07:42 PM
Not convinced yet -

B here - she's a beaut as is anyway.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 07:57 PM
A. No doubt!

http://members.chello.se/unni/GK-2.JPG


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

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 08:00 PM
A

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=home‚ßion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 08:17 PM
A) gets my vote...

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 08:37 PM
A A A A A A A A A A A A .......

less eye candy additions and fix the Fw.

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg

"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 08:56 PM
as the trapped pilot shot down by a fixed FW said:

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

by the way that is Stoitchkov on Hristos`s sig, Hristo Stoitchkov/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.triplane.net/190view.htm


"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king."

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 09:08 PM
-A-.....................course they should probably fix the K4 rudder first.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 09:19 PM
A.

Not that there's the slightest hope in hell of Oleg changing it - as far as his first response to Cyrx's results shows, he thinks everyone who's looking at actual real level photos of the 190's dash that he obtained is seeing things.

Naturally, the dark, washed out, off-centre shots Oleg posted as his "proof" are the definitive article. Sure thing, Oleg. The vanishing commisar and the re-appearing bar..

It's not just the 'bar' - Cyrxs shots show that the thickness and angles of just about every feature of the cockpit are incorrect. I previously thought this might be some combination of camera position or field of view, but after playing with the FOV and view system in FB for a while, there's just no other way around it. FB's entire cockpit model for the 190 bears only a superficial resemblance to the real thing. The angles, thickness, and dimensions are all off by several orders of magnitude.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 10:46 PM
A


Bussard, out.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 11:42 PM
A

but with the patch I fear they have other problems

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
09-05-2003, 12:16 AM
Now are 1.1 patch is out and still needs work. Me109k rudder 109E engines etc.
Take the time and fix the 190 View ! Option A.

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 12:19 AM
I vote an:



a
a a
a a
a a
a a
a a
aaaaaaaaaaaaa
a a
a a
a a
__________________________________________________ _____

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 12:30 AM
-A

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 12:41 AM
Whats that letter before B? Oh yea A.

http://pilotosdelaluftwaffe.tripod.com/avi/erichhartmannsabre.jpg
"Out of all of my accomplishments, Ive never lost a wing man"- Erich Hartmann
He fought for hes country, not for hes leaders.

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 01:05 AM
A)

http://www3.telus.net/ice51/taipans/tpn_bard.jpg (http://taipans.dyndns.org)

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 01:11 AM
Does this say, "Warning, check behind you for Mustangs?"


http://www.triplane.net/images/Fw%20190%20037.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 01:39 AM
A

CYA

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 01:48 AM
Hello All,

A)

without a shodow of a doubt in my mind, the view out of the front armored glass of FW-190 is wrong in IL2 FB.

Kalo

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 01:55 AM
A: and its no contest.

Simply because many photographs and documents have been posted in contrast to what has been modeled in the game. Hell I would be content if they would just remove the bar from below the Revi gunsight. Its a simple fact: The real FW-190 had excellent forward visibility. The forward FW-190 view in IL2 and FB can be labeled as below average.

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 01:58 AM
This excerpt from the link posted by Hristos explains it all:


"Conclusion

The design and layout of the cockpit of the 190 is a work of engineering genius. I simply cannot state it any other way. The visibility from the cockpit was clearly something thought of right from day one. Nothing was put in place by chance and every little thing has a reason behind it, and most of the reasons were from lessons learned in other combat aircraft. Of the fixed wing planes I have been in, the visibility from the 190 is better in almost every aspect, with the possible exception of the Impala Mk2 close support jet. It is also a cockpit that radiated a sense of security to the occupant. But most of all, it reminds strongly of a time and place where visibility was not an issue of comfort, but an issue of life and of death."

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 02:41 AM
A-
Needs reworking

TX-Zen
Black 6
TX Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM only)


http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/tx-zen/Zensig2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 02:46 AM
~S!

"B"

I might have missed the one comment in 100 or more posts, but I don't remember seeing it.

At cruise speed the The FW assumed a more nose down attitude, than we see presently. I surprised no one has said anything about that. AND....... as speed in LEVEL flight increases the pitch attitude is more nose down.
( not unusual as the pitch of no machine presently changes until a dive attitude is assumeed)

E.G the pilot would see better over the nose.



BPO5_Jinx
C.O. Replacement Air Group
Birds of Prey. 16th GvIAP
http://www.birdsofprey16thgviap.com
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/RS-15/N50GL.html

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 02:51 AM
A.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 02:54 AM
S! all

I have stayed out of this, but I guess it wont hurt if I put my vote here, as a player of the game.

A it is.

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

S!Cirx

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 07:45 AM
BPO5_Jinx wrote:

At cruise speed the The FW assumed a more nose down
- attitude, than we see presently. I surprised no one
- has said anything about that. AND....... as speed
- in LEVEL flight increases the pitch attitude is more
- nose down.
- ( not unusual as the pitch of no machine presently
- changes until a dive attitude is assumeed)
-
- E.G the pilot would see better over the nose.


I mentioned this a few times in other 190 view threads.


And I want to vote again. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

A.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 08:00 AM
<h1>A</h1>

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

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 08:08 AM
freakin "A" !!!
The pilot sitting in a combat position in a 190 looking forward should have a FACE full of windscreen. Plain and simple to see from all the pics we've looked at.

http://topgunaviation.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/190view1.jpg

http://www.bbs.warbirdsiii.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=64957

Message Edited on 09/05/0307:16AM by MG15120

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 08:26 AM
my vote:

B

Reason: have u ever thought about that the FOV of the digicam isn‚¬īt equal with the FOV of the ingame-camera?


No Sky ,No Limit!


http://www.g3sva.de
http://www.g3sva.de/images/banner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 09:51 AM
A

count me in

CAF Murphy

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 11:56 AM
A !!

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 02:28 PM
C
Based soley on Olegs final say on the matter some time ago.
He is the one you have to convince, and he reckons the 190 forward view will not be revisited.
A is what you want,
C is what you will get from Oleg, sorry guys, thats just the way it is.
One of the Main reasons Oleg no longer replies to Posts in this forum except for Posts he creates himself, is because you badger him like children to change somthing that, he has said will not be changed ( sigh)
Too many posters want to argue with the developer, so he wont even respond now, except in posts he creates himself.
Great work guys!!
you certainly have screwed this forum for us in that regard.

S!

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 02:57 PM
A!

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 03:12 PM
A!

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 03:17 PM
A

Oleg's default view is very close (matches well to his original proof pics) - however the shifted view used by all to shoot is where the problem (or should I say 'Bar') lies.

Re the digicam perspective comment - the fellow who took the photos sat in the cockpit and observed with his two functioning Mk1 human eyeballs that no obstructing bar was visible.

Oleg stated he won't change it, fair enough its his call - but that doesn't mean it must be accepted as correct.

Cheers

Athos

"When first under fire and you're wishful to duck, don't look nor take heed at the man that is struck, be thankful you're living, and trust to your luck, and face to your front like a soldier"
ex. Rudyard Kipling

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 04:04 PM
<font face="Arial" size="8"color="orange">A</font></p>

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



JG51_Ramstein III.Gruppe
Jagdgeschwader 51 "M√¬∂lders"
http://www.jg51.de
http://www.vow-hq.com
http://www.propheten.de.sr

<img src=http://www.jg51.de/JG-51Web/Wappen/ramstein-banner.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 04:17 PM
Clearly "A"

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 04:34 PM
A

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 04:44 PM
A

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 04:46 PM
A

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 04:49 PM
A, for the next sim

http://www.aviationartprints.com/images/xdhm2424_small.jpg


"HyperLobby 4 Ever"

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 07:54 PM
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

A for the fwcockpit
A for the dirtyglass in the late 109
A for the rudder of the 109K4
A ..oh i should not say this/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 08:55 PM
<font size=6>A</font><font size=5>A</font><font size=4>A</font><font size=3>A</font><font size=2>A</font><font size=1>A</font><font size=1>RRGH</font>

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 09:02 PM
A!

Cheers,
Lawn Dart
Operations Officer, IV/JG51
http://www.jg51.net/

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 09:55 PM
<font face="Arial" size="18"color="orange">A</font></p>

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 10:07 PM
A



MfG Frank

<img src=http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/Links/link_iiijjg53.jpg alt="III/JG53"></a>

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 11:02 PM
A

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 11:37 PM
Here`s my vote:

----------------------------------------------------------
A) Current forward view of Fw 190, as modeled in FB, NEEDS REWORKING, as the study suggests.
----------------------------------------------------------


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vez√©r√ľnk a B√°tors√°g, K√¬*s√©r√¬Ķnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

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

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 11:38 PM
A!!!!

Inferno71
09-06-2003, 12:01 AM
C

________________________
http://www.x-plane.org/users/infernofire/Img/inferno5.gif (http://www.lo-mac.com/)

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 12:12 AM
A

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 12:34 AM
MG15120 wrote:
- freakin "A" !!!
- The pilot sitting in a combat position in a 190
- looking forward should have a FACE full of
- windscreen. Plain and simple to see from all the
- pics we've looked at.
-
<img
- src="http://topgunaviation.net/sitebuildercontent/
- sitebuilderpictures/190view1.jpg">
-
- <a
- href="http://www.bbs.warbirdsiii.com/attachment.ph
- p?s=&postid=64957"
- target=_blank>http://www.bbs.warbirdsiii.com/attac
- hment.php?s=&postid=64957</a>
-
-
- Message Edited on 09/05/03‚ 07:16AM by MG15120

This picture illistrates perfectly that the 190 did fly with a nose down attitude.
There is one feature or object on this plane,that if you draw a horizontal line straight through,it will show you what I mean.
Draw it and compare it in relation with the position to the rest of the 190.
Then aline the fuesalge in relation to the line you have drawn and then see where that feature or object points too.
Do you know what the object is? Lets see if you have an eye for detail.

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 05:05 AM
A

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 06:11 AM
C

It's apparent to me from the photographs that show a mounted sight that the view forward and downwards should be quite limited. Whether the struts are exactly the right size is debatable. I think you would need to measure them on the real think and then and then check the 3d model in 3dmax. Comparing screenshots in the game with photos can be misleading. A lot depends on the exact position of the photographer and the focal length of the lens that is used.

There are lots of more important things for the developer to work on improving.

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 06:19 AM
Do you really think Maddox is going to change the cockpit based on this poll??

Wake up, people, he's already said he won't no matter how wrong he is.
That should tell you something about this so called "simulator" and how realistic and historically accurate it is.

However, my vote is "A".

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 06:44 AM
Michael_2 wrote:
- C
-
- It's apparent to me from the photographs that show a
- mounted sight that the view forward and downwards
- should be quite limited. Whether the struts are
- exactly the right size is debatable. I think you
- would need to measure them on the real think and
- then and then check the 3d model in 3dmax. Comparing
- screenshots in the game with photos can be
- misleading. A lot depends on the exact position of
- the photographer and the focal length of the lens
- that is used.
-
- There are lots of more important things for the
- developer to work on improving.
-
-

You could have a point michael.
But if you look at documented real life picture of an outside view of a 190 in flight the evedence becomes so much more clear.
A while back someone posted a picture of a 190 in flight to show how the 190 travelled with a nose down attitude. The response of someone on that thread said that the person could have posted the picture at an altared angle to try and prove his point.
Someone again posted a picture on this thread to illistrate the downwards nose attitude of the 190.
I looked at and noticed one noticable feature that proves the angle could not be altared.
If you look at the wing mounted gun and its horizontal position in relation to the rest of the aircraft,it proves it did travel nose down very noticeably.
Draw a straight line straight through the gun from one end of the picture to the other end and you will see.
Draw another line equal measurement at each end and move it up level to the pilots line of sight.
I tried a test with a 190 in the QMB with a 190A5,and was startled at what I witnessed.
I put the pilot on auto and observed the 190 from the exterior.
The pilot leveled off showing no nose down attitude what so ever.
It positioned its self straight and level in no way simulates the true flight of a 190.
What was even more startling was the position of the wing gun in relation to the rest of the plane.
The gun looked as if it was mounted to take indirect artillary shots.
Also compare other details such as the rudder lines and canopy lines in relation to a real photo.

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 10:03 AM
- A -

Allways thought: I never sat in a FW - most of the pictures I saw till now didn‚¬īt had the right view like in FB but now - after the last ones, that are posted..

A!!!

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 10:18 AM
Well said VonSchlep! I have compared some model kits that I have to the Fw 190. Just looking at what angle the wings ar positioned on the fuselage. No fighter, including P-51, Ki-84, Spitfire, P-40, Bf-109 and La-7 (which shows a slight nose up attitiude) has the nose down attitude of the Fw 190. Even pilot reports says the 190 flew at a nosedown angle.

http://members.chello.se/unni/GK-2.JPG


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

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 10:59 AM
Actualy guys Oleg took all the things into account that have been mentioned here, long before anybody complained about the view from the 190.
When they first built the Sim, I think that is where all the protests over the 190 forward view fall down.

You are assuming somebody smarter and more technicaly advanced than yourself over looked somthing simple.
That is not the case, the reality is he wont be sucked in by you lot ( chuckle) no matter what arguement you present, nothing will change.
1C and Oleg did their home work on the 190 long before the Sim began construction back in the Il-2 days.
They are way ahead of you.

Thats the real reason why the 190 forward view will never change.

Now you can ask of course, there is nothing wrong with that, but in doing so you are expecting 1C to back off from their Historicaly accurate stance.

Please do not start an arguement about historical reality in this Sim with the developer, you will just be ignored, they reckon they have it right ok.
Argueing that will be as much of a waste of time as this poll is, and all other 190 forward view protest threads.

So if theoreticly you get the 190 forward view changed by asking, then your opening a flood gate, of wanted changes for forward views for other **** pits.
Even so Oleg stated in the translated Spanish interview, that people taking photos to argue the 190 forwad view, where taking them from Angles that suited them.

So there is yet another reason why nothing will change.
Still there is no harm in asking.

Good Luck ( your going to need it)




Message Edited on 09/06/0310:07AM by Artic_Wulf

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 11:11 AM
Please guys ! don't discuss here (take other thread). Topic is old, arguments too !
Repeating wont help. Hristos pointed out where all this is/was/will be discussed so keep the poll clear http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
We're just doing a poll here !

So please VOTE !

The shorter the messages the easier....
As I have already voted I wont repeat myself.

Thank you !

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 11:16 AM
Artic_Wulf wrote:
- You are assuming somebody smarter and more
- technicaly advanced than yourself over looked
- somthing simple.

Well, I guess nobodys perfect. There's still ALOT of things in this sim that are off, so why not this?

- Now you can ask of course, there is nothing wrong
- with that, but in doing so you are expecting 1C to
- back off from their Historicaly accurate stance.

Historical stance? Without the windshield attached, sure. but since refraction isn't modelled, is it too much to ask to remove the bar at least 2/3 to give the player what the real 190 pilot saw?

This is THE WW2 sim, (or game if ou like). Realism appears to be put first. Things are getting tweaked for the better in every patch. this one will be visuall, but that shouldn't stop it from getting better./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Sorry JaBo_HH--Gotcha my arguments stop here!


http://members.chello.se/unni/GK-2.JPG


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

Message Edited on 09/06/0310:17AM by robban75

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 01:46 PM
A /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

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

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig2.jpg (http://www.jg68.de.vu)

When once you have tasted flight,
you will always walk the earth
with your eyes turned skyward;
to where you have been
and to where you always want to return.

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 01:53 PM
A- Needs reworking.


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

"Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

Mark Twain

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 02:02 PM
A

<img src=http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/fb_falco.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 02:36 PM
A)

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 03:23 PM
Of course A) ! (like I wrote a number of times before)

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 06:22 PM
A

"Ich bin ein W√ľrgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 06:31 PM
A



Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 06:58 PM
Definately A

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 07:07 PM
C.

'til the Mustang comes out, the 190 is my fav in the game. I like the execution of the model as is. Works great for me. So there are some MINOR problems with representation of refraction or advantages of seeing with binocular vision that are not represented in game. It certainly doesn't make a difference to me, for two reasons.

1. When looking for or tracking a target, you don't just move your head, you maneuver the airplane as necessary to open up your field of view. Essentially, you 'fly around' any cockpit obstructions like struts. So they're slightly thicker than would be visualized with real binocular vision. So what- you maneuver the aircraft fractionally more to get the same view - you would still be moving the airplane to clear/track/id airspace behind the strut anyway.

2. The bar below the sight - what kind of expectations do people have for lead shooting? Are not most realistic shots taken from direct or near direct 6 at close range??? I make a lot of blind tracking shots in the 190, but they require so much lead, even at relatively short range, that a few dgrees of downward view isn't going to make a difference.

Another thing - this argument about level flight attitude is comical. Pictures??? Show me a wing chordline, and some angle of attack figures for different steady state level flight speeds, and we'll start a discussion on what attitude the aircraft would have in flight. Wait - what a waste of time that would be! This is an important but simple effect that can easily be handled by a pro like Oleg. I trust that this has been done correctly.

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

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 07:20 PM
in respect to the rest of the game and the developer's work..
..but in this case he is telling us tall stories..

A)

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 07:56 PM
A

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 08:20 PM
A

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 10:13 PM
A

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 10:42 PM
a)

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 11:07 PM
I vote A /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 12:25 AM
Panelboy wrote:
.
-
- Another thing - this argument about level flight
- attitude is comical. Pictures??? Show me a wing
- chordline, and some angle of attack figures for
- different steady state level flight speeds, and
- we'll start a discussion on what attitude the
- aircraft would have in flight. Wait - what a waste
- of time that would be! This is an important but
- simple effect that can easily be handled by a pro
- like Oleg. I trust that this has been done
- correctly.
-
- Barfly
- Executive Officer
- 7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"
-
- http://www.7jg77.com
-

Comical? Well okay then there panelboy. I'm glad to see you have a good sence of humar than. Would you like to know what I find comical? Its your sig "Executive Officer".
I have been in the military for 22 years and still counting. And my own personal experiance with officers is,most are highly educated allright and can be very smart in theory. But I find one of the lacking qualities in most are basic common sence. Many are also arogant thinking they know more than everyone else.
My geusse is your not an officer in real life,just pretending to be in a virtual world. But thats okay everyone is entitled.
But yor arrogant and snotish reply suits your sig.

As for the part about Oleg knowing everything,I hate to bust your idles bubble but I'll have to inform you he DOES NOT!
Mr. Maddox has a lot of knowlegde and is pretty dam good at what he does. Am I right Panelboy? Of course I am. Wait...I'm sorry,that was a little arogant of me. But you have to admit IL2 is a pretty good acheivement compared to others.
Oleg can be wrong and miss informed in his proffesion just like any other proffesional. The engineers at NASA got wrong.........twice.
I'm not putting forth my opinions,thoughts or findings to prove that I am any better or smarter than anyone else.
I'm a 41 year old high school drop out with a grade ten education and grade nine math. Not a engineer like Mr. Madox.

But to answer your question. If you trim an aircraft at any speed it will fallow its normal and proper attitude of flight.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 01:55 AM
Good evening Herr VonSchlep,

Touche - I see we have exactly the same sense of humor, hehe. And thanks for commenting that my singularly arrogant behavior on this bulletin board is appropriate for a virtual officer. I feel professionally validated, hehe.

All kidding aside, I agree with the common sense thing. I also think you can sprinkle it evenly amongst all people regardless of formal education. As far as the tone of my post goes, I like to chime in occasionally, though sometimes it's mostly an emotional reaction, and not too informative (like my post above). So I appologize if I offended you or anyone else by my attitude http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My intent was to say that there is a scientific basis to determining flight attitude, and the pictures posted do not present enough evidence to come to any conclusion. My reasoning comes from what I think is my own common sense, and some practical experience from my own real life flying. I understand what you're saying about trimming, but the picture could be an aircraft in a shallow descent. It looks very unusual for a plane in level flight, as the wing looks like it should be cranked up a few degrees; it isn't, and the prop looks like it's point down a few degrees.

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

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 01:56 AM
http://www.sdplastics.com/dedhorse.gif

<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

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 02:38 AM
Bearcat, I'll take your answer as a resounding:

A.




<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 02:43 AM
A

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 03:10 AM
A

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/reincarnation.jpg (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
Are you damned? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
<

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 03:26 AM
Allright we have gotten a few things aired out.
But since you posted here on this thread did show you had some what of an interest.

It is my unprofesional opinion that the flight attitude of the 190 is modled wrong in IL2. And to be fair,not only the 190 but all the other flight models as well.
It may sound like nit picking,but in the arguement of wether IL2 is a flight sim or game,I would prefer it to be more accurate and realistic leaning more towards a sim for future developement.
IL2 is far from being a finished product as it sits at the moment and leaves very much improvement to get it as accuratle as possible.
I am fully aware that with the availablity of the limited tech today,it is impossible to have it full real. But in ten or fifteen years,who knows...VR helmet maybe?

If you try the test on different aircraft in a QMB,I'm sure you will see what I mean.
All the aircraft I have tested on auto pilot at level flight,show the propellars leaning back towards the aircraft at the top. None are perfectly verticle in relation to the rest of the airplanes stucture..
I'm sure this is not normal.
Also notice the horizontal position of other such things,expecialy guns that protude out of varios aircraft. You will notice they point upward at a quite excadurated angle. Most noticeable on the 190's and P-47's.
Turn auto pilot off and let the plane drop until the props are perfectly verticle and guns are near perfect horizontal,than pause and look.
I tried this test with the 190 and compared it to the picture posted on this thread,and the simalaraties were all most exact.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 05:00 AM
So far I've flown the 190A8 manually in level flight at 500m, 400, 300, 250, 200, and down to unaccelerated stall at 140 kph. First, it's hard to tell, but it looked like the prop at 500 kph was perfectly vertical with the flight path, and also appeared aligned with the engine cowling. The wing appeared level with the flight path, which could be normal for a 190 at this speed. The attitude indicator indicated slightly less than level, maybe a degree or half a degree, which may also be normal. As speed decreased, nose up attitude for level flight increased as expected, and below 300 kph, was progressively higher as speed decreased down to stall at 140.

The attitude at high speed and as speed decreased looked normal to me. Gun attitude appeared level at high speed, which also seems normal to me.

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

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 05:46 AM
Guys, do the courtesy of taking the conversation to a different thread and leave this just as a voting thread as per the original posters request. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,
Lawn Dart
Operations Officer, IV/JG51
http://www.jg51.net/

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 10:06 AM
A

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 10:42 AM
A

http://gc3.normandie.niemen.free.fr/images/ezboard/signatures/enigmus.jpg

NN_EnigmuS.
Normandie Niemen virtuel.
http://www.normandieniemen.firstream.net/

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 10:58 AM
A

http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 11:46 AM
"A"

A voté.

Patditlepat alias Jabo Patatras, W√ľrgerwhiner caract√©ris√© dit-on .

"Avec un avion on fini toujours par redescendre. L'√©tat final du pilote ne d√©pend pas trop de la descente elle m√¬™me, mais grandement de la fa√ßon dont il descend..."

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 04:08 PM
A !

Do it !

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 05:24 PM
dear ubi u made a mistake ( its human to fail) please get that error corrected

thanks for great game
La7_PIP

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 06:21 PM
A

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 11:09 PM
A


BUT.. I'm not holding it against Oleg or any other member of his team if they won't rework it. Since I'm convinced that there is no "bad will" involved here, simply because of the fact that no already existing cockpit has ever been "reworked".

Dang, I almost missed this one.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 11:46 PM
A



http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/yunus%20sig.jpg


"I love the Butcherbird"

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 12:29 AM
A.

Dear OLEG,it's voice from your people, we know,"you have a dream.." not let the dream to die.


more prove ,or correct

yours FB flyer

..

http://www.chnace.org/chn_logo.jpg


..enjoy flight,enjoy live..

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 04:19 AM
A big "A" all the way.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 09:34 AM
A


Gruß

RogerHawk


http://520082849836-0000.bei.t-online.de/JG68_logo/GreenTigersLogoklein.gif (http://520082849836-0000.bei.t-online.de/index.htm)


<hr>
"Die gro√üen L√¬∂cher in den Fl√¬§chen sind nicht das Problem. Erst wenn die Dinger fehlen wird mir bei der Sache mulmig."

<hr>

http://www.JG68.de.vu

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 10:15 AM
A like abnormal

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 01:39 PM
http://koti.mbnet.fi/~vipez/A.jpg</a>

Definately

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 07:15 PM
A

Flying Fw-190 since IL2 1.1, I believe its time for a change on the Fw-190 foreward view

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 08:56 PM
B) The issue is irrelevant.


2.5 degrees downward over the nose doesn't make or break 99.9% of the combat in a 190.

It's a simulation. Sim-u-la-tion. Not an exact replica of real life.

Heck, the IL-2 isn't perfect - and it's the flagship aircraft of the sim.

I'd say the level of fidelity in the 190 is just about as good as it gets when you consider there are over 60 flyable aircraft, including variants.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 09:13 PM
http://wolf.equitatura.de//Bilder/190_****_3.jpg



imagine my vote /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Laatzen museum is worth a visit /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/franky.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 09:16 PM
Nice pic franky! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Taken by me! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<img src=http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/falkster.gif alt="III/JG53" width="600"> (http://www.jagdgeschwader53.de)

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:54 AM
A

Glasses-"I may have four eyes but you only have one wing"

"Kurt Tank is your daddy"

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 09:53 PM
BUMP !

Vote Guys !

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:20 AM
Well I don't know whether it really needs drastic changes. What would be of great help is a chance to move with a pilots head around the cockpit. FW is know for it's great FOV form the cockpit but now all I can see looking back is an armorplate, looking up - nicely crafted line of steel. Also I guess that most of the pilots were dwarfs, since they seem to look from below. See I fly a plane in real world and even though a fuselage of the plane si directly connected to the upper part of the canopy (ME 109 like) when I look around I can see A LOT behind me. I think this feature would not take a much time for so talented people as Oleg's team is. I read about Pips Priller and he was really not-tall, I have like 6.3-4 and even though I once a while fly with a plane which was ment to be used in Vietnam (it means it has raised the floor of the cockpit so even smaller pilots could see from it) I have no problen to fit in. I guess the FW cockpit is much more spacious. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:08 AM
And I'll vote A /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Please do not vote anymore. Let's finish this.


So far we have 106 votes. I tried to filter out those who voted more than once. Also, I didn't count posts where there wasn't specifically stated A, B or C.


So,

A - 96 votes (90.57%) - ...NEEDS REWORKING...
B - 6 votes ( 5.71%) - ...IS IRRELEVANT...
C - 4 votes ( 3.77%) - ...DOES NOT NEED REWORKING...

Oleg will be notified of the results, that's all I can do.

Mods, please lock this one now. Thanks for voting and thanks mods for the patience.


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

Message Edited on 09/10/0308:43AM by Hristos

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 09:37 AM
A definietly.. sorry noticed this too late :/

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 10:29 PM
It's too late in this sim to ever fix it.

Technically speaking the cockpit is accurate but with no refraction the view is totally inaccurate (wrong).

When I'm in the la series planes it sure seems like refraction was taken into account there!

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 10:47 PM
I can be wrong, because I don't fly VVS planes very often.

But the cockpit of the I153 seems to be changed. They added a windshield /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

So, modifying "the bar" should be easy /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif .



EDIT: Argh, forget it ... I should have checked it, before creating a new rumor /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=home‚ßion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

Message Edited on 09/10/03 11:48PM by Atzebrueck

Message Edited on 09/11/0312:20AM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 11:13 PM
Atzebrueck wrote:
- I can be wrong, because I don't fly VVS planes very
- often.
-

in case anyone confirm this. this will rise a uproar but please post it in seperate THREAD and reserve this for voting. this poll is degraded to a discussion.

Nevertheless, thanks for the information atzebr√ľck.

VOTE !

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 11:35 PM
I've already voted, but as far as I understand it, the poll has been stopped five posts above /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=home‚ßion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 10:23 AM
I think if the 190 forward view was going to be changed they would have done so by now.
There have been threads before with over a 1000 postings, and nothing changed.
The results of this poll mean nothing, barely even 150 people out of the 7000 that regulary use this site even bothered to vote.

Now if the poll was initiated by Oleg at the official IL-2/FB home page, now that would be a different matter alltogether.

However that has not happened

S!

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 10:25 AM
maybe this discussion is why I asked mods to lock this thread once the voting was over...you can discuss this issue in anther thread

thank you

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

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 01:19 AM
A ...oh please...change the forward view...fix the cockpit...please...


Regard, Sven

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 01:56 PM
bump

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 01:59 PM
A

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 02:37 PM
A

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 02:40 PM
CrackFerret wrote:
- It's too late in this sim to ever fix it.
-
- Technically speaking the cockpit is accurate but
- with no refraction the view is totally inaccurate
- (wrong).
-
- When I'm in the la series planes it sure seems like
- refraction was taken into account there!
-
-

This "complaint" about the fw's forward pilot view has been around since Il-2 days. That gives lots of time for a correction.




http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 02:55 PM
D. I haven't seen a photo from the pilots eye position
yet, so I can't yet be sure. I've photos take from
positions to the left, right, above, and below the
pilot's perspective, but not one at the eyeline so
far. If there is one, point me to it.

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 03:26 PM
You guys are really very boring.... Try to have fun instead of picking on the very smallest detail. With BoB coming all this FW190 whining is largely irrelevant. Give Oleg a break!

Count me as a spoilt ballot paper with "I have better things to do" written on it. :-p

Then read this:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yxnky

Here's as excerpt:

"From what was said in Birmingham it is down to the arrogance and ingratitude of some posters in this forum, insulting posts and petty arguments have made this forum a bad experience for many.

We once had a developer who took time from a hectic schedule to inform us about game development on a regular basis. Because of the attitudes of a few we have lost this."

If you posted 'A' then this comment is for you.

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 04:24 PM
MB_Lerxster wrote:
- You guys are really very boring.... Try to have fun
- instead of picking on the very smallest detail. With
- BoB coming all this FW190 whining is largely
- irrelevant. Give Oleg a break!
-
-

NO IT IS NOT.

The Fw had a 'ring and half' better view than the Spit. The Spit will be hampered by this SAME problem! Look at the Spit screenshots posted.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 04:42 PM
The 190 debate will go on forever and it is being done with the hope that say 1-2 years from now an accurate cockpit view for the sim will be given. There is no Oleg bashing or anything going on here just a flow if information. Don't mistake a LW whiner for someone displaying proper information with evidence to back it up such as Cirx. If the Oleg Team can't handle that, well thats another problem completely but I think they can. Trust me if you really look at the posting in this forum you will see a wide variety of topics. Its interesting that the 190 view topic receives so much attention. I think there is a reason for that.




MB_Lerxster wrote:
- You guys are really very boring.... Try to have fun
- instead of picking on the very smallest detail. With
- BoB coming all this FW190 whining is largely
- irrelevant. Give Oleg a break!
-
- Count me as a spoilt ballot paper with "I have
- better things to do" written on it. :-p
-
- Then read this:
-
- <a
- href="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-
- topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yxnky"
- target=_blank>http://forums.ubi.com/messages/messa
- ge_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yxnky
- </a>
-
-
- Here's as excerpt:
-
- "From what was said in Birmingham it is down to the
- arrogance and ingratitude of some posters in this
- forum, insulting posts and petty arguments have made
- this forum a bad experience for many.
-
- We once had a developer who took time from a hectic
- schedule to inform us about game development on a
- regular basis. Because of the attitudes of a few we
- have lost this."
-
- If you posted 'A' then this comment is for you.
-
-





Message Edited on 10/11/0303:47PM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 04:47 PM
IV_JG51_Swine wrote:
-
-
- The 190 debate will go on forever and it is being
- done with the hope that say 1-2 years from now an
- accurate cockpit view for the sim will be given.
- There is no Oleg bashing or anything going on here
- just a flow if information. Don't mistake a LW
- whiner for someone displaying proper information
- with evidence to back it up such as Cirx.
-

Yes but it Doesn't affect the way the game runs...it's just visual. With all due respect I think Oleg has more on his plate than mess around with past history. Oh the irony!

As you say it'll be alright in a couple of years ....so stop going on about it please!

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 05:49 PM
A





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



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bryant3/ETSigGermany.gif




under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 04:31 PM
MB_Lerxster, why do you think your opinion is so important ? The way I see it, it is just another "B".

Please do us the courtesy and leave the discussion out of this thread. Thank you.

P.S.
This thread is rather old. People had enough time to vote. Oleg has been informed about the results. With 100+ votes, it is a representing sample, don't you think ?

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

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 05:10 PM
B

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 05:11 PM
Il-2 series and FB has definetely great potential. Thats why so many people are so emotional about it's obivious flaws.


FM overlooks in climbrates are major turnoff for me. It made me quit playing FB and return to sims where relative FMs are better modeled.(AH and warbirds FH) I prefer using historical tactics which in FB sadly aren't possible.(Ie. spiralclimb in early 109s and about everthing else that has to do with relative power/weight ratio)

Ofcourse 190 forward view should be fixed, but with current FMs I don't really play this game anyway. Im only waiting if oleg decides to fix those obivious FM errors. I like other aspects of this game so much.

So i vote B.

After complete FM rework (which i doubt will ever happen)I'd definetely vote for rework of cockpit views. (which i doubt will ever happen)

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






Message Edited on 10/12/0304:13PM by ladoga

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 05:13 PM
"A"

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 03:03 PM
"A"

gprr

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 05:32 PM
"A"

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 06:14 PM
A

obviously,
but Oleg will say no anyway.

II/JG54_Zent

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 06:20 PM
a

ZG77_Nagual
10-13-2003, 06:32 PM
I thought is was a bar
But then; What is a bar but a pole on it's side?..
http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg


Message Edited on 10/13/0301:33PM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 06:35 PM
"A"

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 07:09 PM
I vote A.

I'm not 100% sure but it looks to me that the view we have now is most probably off. Plus I'd rather error in the side of having to good a gunsight view than that of having to bad a gun sight view.

Plus, it would be nice to finally put this one to rest on these boards http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

s!

:FI:SnoopBaron

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 08:23 PM
Just change it - there is enough evidence here - and it's hard enough as it is to dogfight with that view.


"A"



note: Only A if people promise to leave the subject alone. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Skies Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://www.forgottenskies.com
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 09:53 PM
A

7./JG26_HarryM

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 12:17 AM
A...as well as the 109's dirty glass, are simply unreal.