PDA

View Full Version : FW-190. Forward view and gunsight. Real things



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:08 PM
I'm sorry that I wasn't able to answer for some time.
However I will be not able to answer a bit more for some time. Say for two weeks or so. Simply I will have another on surgey on the next week. Hope that final for the current moment of my life.

Now about FW-190.


Here are several of pictures to prove that the FW cockpits are modeled correctly.
Everything is clearly seen.
This is the forward canopy section of the Ta152H
The mainframe of the front part of the cockpit is identical on all FW and Ta
planes. As you can see the struts are THICK (note: the picture was done from the position a bit higher than the eyes of the pilot).

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/proof_1.jpg


BTW the Revi ginsight position is higher on the Ta152 but lower on FW models. It was
possible on Ta-152H only because there used simplified Revi without reticle dimmer mechnism and other frame. Even with this high position of gunsight on Ta-152 planes is clearly seen that it is also not enough high from the point of our players view.

Now look for the picture below how was fixed the gunsights on FW-190A4 to FW190A/F-8.
If to set gunsight higher, then the gunsight inclined reflection glass section will be "inside" the armored glass screen. Such simple problem..

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/proof_2.jpg


You also suggested that we should move the pilot viewing position higher. Please take a look at the pictures below. The first pic is the default viewing position which is currently present in the game.
The second pic is what you ask for (and please be sure that the head already crossed the frame of canopy in such a bit higher position. And you'll see the frame of nose that will cross the part of view).

http://www.1c.ru/games/files/mado/PilotView_I.jpg

http://www.1c.ru/games/files/mado/PilotView_II.jpg



Given the fact that the cockpit geometry is correct you will see the top bar that obscures the sight where the target tracking is happening the most. I don't think you'll like that.
Thats why we are not gonna change anything.
The other choice was to change the geometry but that would be historically untrue.
Things should be as they are now.

And if all above isn't enough, please look for the position of gunsight on the pictures below. They say all things.

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/190-1.jpg


http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/190-2.jpg


http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/190-3.jpg



So everything is modeled correctly and will not be redone. I will repeat - we don't plan to change it. I will not return to that theme anymore.

PS. From which books and where we took these pics I will post on Monday. I will be absent till Monday.

PS2. Unfortunatelly, I have not any rights to post a copy of original FWs docs that used for development due to agreement. For FW-190s we have so much as for no one aircraft, modelled in a sim (maybe for Il-2 we have the same amount). So please take as reference these pics above.





Oleg Maddox
1C:Maddox Games

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:08 PM
I'm sorry that I wasn't able to answer for some time.
However I will be not able to answer a bit more for some time. Say for two weeks or so. Simply I will have another on surgey on the next week. Hope that final for the current moment of my life.

Now about FW-190.


Here are several of pictures to prove that the FW cockpits are modeled correctly.
Everything is clearly seen.
This is the forward canopy section of the Ta152H
The mainframe of the front part of the cockpit is identical on all FW and Ta
planes. As you can see the struts are THICK (note: the picture was done from the position a bit higher than the eyes of the pilot).

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/proof_1.jpg


BTW the Revi ginsight position is higher on the Ta152 but lower on FW models. It was
possible on Ta-152H only because there used simplified Revi without reticle dimmer mechnism and other frame. Even with this high position of gunsight on Ta-152 planes is clearly seen that it is also not enough high from the point of our players view.

Now look for the picture below how was fixed the gunsights on FW-190A4 to FW190A/F-8.
If to set gunsight higher, then the gunsight inclined reflection glass section will be "inside" the armored glass screen. Such simple problem..

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/proof_2.jpg


You also suggested that we should move the pilot viewing position higher. Please take a look at the pictures below. The first pic is the default viewing position which is currently present in the game.
The second pic is what you ask for (and please be sure that the head already crossed the frame of canopy in such a bit higher position. And you'll see the frame of nose that will cross the part of view).

http://www.1c.ru/games/files/mado/PilotView_I.jpg

http://www.1c.ru/games/files/mado/PilotView_II.jpg



Given the fact that the cockpit geometry is correct you will see the top bar that obscures the sight where the target tracking is happening the most. I don't think you'll like that.
Thats why we are not gonna change anything.
The other choice was to change the geometry but that would be historically untrue.
Things should be as they are now.

And if all above isn't enough, please look for the position of gunsight on the pictures below. They say all things.

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/190-1.jpg


http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/190-2.jpg


http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/190-3.jpg



So everything is modeled correctly and will not be redone. I will repeat - we don't plan to change it. I will not return to that theme anymore.

PS. From which books and where we took these pics I will post on Monday. I will be absent till Monday.

PS2. Unfortunatelly, I have not any rights to post a copy of original FWs docs that used for development due to agreement. For FW-190s we have so much as for no one aircraft, modelled in a sim (maybe for Il-2 we have the same amount). So please take as reference these pics above.





Oleg Maddox
1C:Maddox Games

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:11 PM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

EDIT:

http://www.1c.ru/games/files/mado/PilotView_II.jpg


^^That one is even a bit too much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . just have the cowling aligned with the bar, so that we can only see the bulges of MG 131. I think that the pilot would be max. touching the top bar then, while in your higher position pic he already is in the glass, like you said /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . Geometry is at least right. I think the Revis are that low because the dimmer screen would not fit... I rather don't want to be able to use the dimmer then... but that's not the main problem. With proper refraction the bar would not disturb the view through the gun sight, but tha't not possible in Il-2 engine.

We hope, that you can do this refraction in your next sim, so when you implement the FW from FB in there, we get a better sight /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

However, if you don't change it, there are several things to fix that can make the FWs better like climbrate (especially Doras and A-9 would be better then) or elevator @ high speeds; notice that we can't even do high speed stalls in FB. 380 IAS is the highest speed where stall is possible. So we would even get a historical correct disadvantage with better elevators /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . I can take that for better maneouverability. At speeds below 380km/h IAS it's just fine. Hard to turn. Don't fly that slow.

<hr>
<font color=59626B>

Message Edited on 06/11/0303:25PM by Willey

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:15 PM
Nice post Oleg. I`m so tired of all the whining about the FW-cockpit.

i have always tought the 109 cockpit was nice/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

oh and have you planned to change the FM of the 190 becase it is a little weak and.....oh sorry got a little carryed away/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:16 PM
How about making that Shift-F1 view, simular to view from 262?

&lt;script>;a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor="#000066";</script>
<center>http://pages.sbcglobal.net/simfreak/_uimages/Doolittle.gif (http://www.jimmydoolittlereunion.com)</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:19 PM
I am behind you Oleg!
Strenght to your health! that is more important then arguments that lead nowhere.

Kees

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:20 PM
Nice post! The last two pictures are great and cleary show that bar right behind the Revi.

Lets wait for the whiners/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

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

<table border="0" width="100%"><tr><td width="50%"><font size=2><font size="-1">Come and see the brilliant light
don't let your emotions mask your sight
it's the manifestation of a deeper fight
that affects me and you
my optimism was running high
a new world order was on my mind
but I couldn't believe it when I heard them say
they're blowing it away

and the fertile cresent is burning today
and baby my emotions are too
the cradle of humanity has led us all astray
and we're all in this together don't you know
‚¬īcause our species has nowhere else to go </font></font></td><td width="50%"><font size=2><font size="-1">Aggression rears it's ugly head
retaliation brings further dread
the two are linked by unseen threads
that wind back through time
I don't agree with this outdated trend
nationalism is an evil friend
but hatred is instilled by invisible lines
drawn in our minds

and the fertile cresent is haunting us today
and baby our instincts are too
the ghost of humanity is warning us this way
and i think we all should heed it don't you know
‚¬īcause we've got nowhere else to go </font></font></td></tr></table>

"Fertile Cresent" by Bad Religion

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:24 PM
Oleg,
Please get well and strength to your health. I have been playing the game you design for 2 years. I have been you #1 silent fan for that whole time

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:28 PM
Oleg

I certainly agree with your cockpit frames. They appear to be accurate.

The problem is:

When you fly this sim in the cockpit views you can't see well. Principally, because the actual pilot in the actual aircraft did not have his head anchored in one place on a swivel. He could lean forward, lean back, lean to the side, and view in all directions...and let's not forget peripheral vision. These things are being ignored in favor of "realism".

Here is a thread on these boards discussing translucent cockpit frames, which would make the experience of flying FB much more enjoyable. You could at least see all the great scenery and add-ons you've created.

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

It would nice to just have a switch to allow translucent cockpit frames, it would be a great improvement. I hate the HUD because it is hard to maintain situational orientation in combat. I compensate for the highly obstructed cockpit views by using external views.

There are some visual examples of the translucent cockpit frames at the posting in the above referenced thread.

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

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

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:33 PM
Great plane, crappy forward visibility.

Thanks for making the extra effort for the third or fourth time now Oleg.

S!

<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
06-11-2003, 02:33 PM
Thanks for taking the time to create this post and respond with evidence to some of the discussions about the FW-190 in this forum. Best wishes that you can make a quick recovery from your surgery.

--Robster(44)


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

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:34 PM
You can't always get what you want

But if you try sometimes you might find...you get what you need!

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I guess the 190 will still be a dead horse for in-cockpit use...the TA152 as well. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

&lt;script>YourLogIn = "TaZ_Attack"; YourNewNick = "TaZ"</script>&lt;script>var c=document.all.tags("img").length; document.write('<'+'script>var msg' + c + ' = "' + YourNewNick + '"; var newHTML = "";for (var i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){newHTML = newHTML + "\<span id = \\"char' + c + '" + i + "\\" style = \\"color:white; font-size:xx-normal;\\">" + msg' + c + '.charAt(i) + "\</span>";}<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("b");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++)if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf[YourLogIn)!=-1)var o=a[i];o.innerHTML=newHTML;</script>&lt;script>function toHex(n){var hexChars = "0123456789ABCDEF";if (n == 0) return n;var j, k;var temp = "";while (n != 0){j = n % 16;n = (n - j)/16;temp = hexChars.charAt(j) + temp;}return temp;}</script>&lt;script>document.write('<' + 'script>function colorize' + c + '(){if (!document.all) return;for (i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){k = Math.round[Math.random[) * 16777215);k = toHex[k);while [k.length \< 6){k = k + "0";}document.all["char' + c + '" + i].style.color = "#" + k;}window.setTimeout["colorize' + c + '[)", 250);}colorize' + c + '[);<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.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='http://home1.gte.net/vze23gyt/files/taz_man.gif'</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#1F283F";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#3300FF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#2B3038";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#123D70";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "1F283F";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#2B3038";}</script> <CENTER>http://home1.gte.net/vze23gyt/files/p51_jaws.jpg</CENTER><CENTER><font size="+1"><div style="width:500;color:#FF2211;fontsize:11pt;filter:shado w Blur[color=red,strength=2)">Coming soon...</div></center></font><FONT color="#2B3038">[b]

Message Edited on 06/21/0305:39AM by TaZ_Attack

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:38 PM
Why not add pilot movement buttons like in Rowan's Battle Of Britain. Slight little movements up and side to side or down (within reason) to simulate the slight adjustments you can make with your body while flying to get a little more view when necessary.

I realize the importance of such things to people who really love their favorite aircraft and I hope they eventually get adjusted or fixed or worked-around with new functions like the above suggestion ; but Im really hoping that stability and optimization take precedence over novelty.

Murdock
SimCorner
http://geocities.com/murdocksimboy/

Message Edited on 06/11/0301:46PM by MurdockSC

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:42 PM
Thank for Oleg's kindly reply.

But What I see from the pictures is that the main frame are too thick in game than the real one.

***********
<img src=http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=19249>
It's Real, It's Fun!

Message Edited on 06/11/0310:45PM by Mc_Wolf

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:44 PM
Oleg,


Thank You! (Zdrastvutye) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Sure, it's not what I wanted to hear but I really do appreciate you taking the time to post this information.


As one who was not pleased with the forward view in the FW190 with the cockpit on, and posted several times to that effect I feel compelled to say you have made your point well and for me this issue(which got way out of hand) is finished.


Some may feel compelled to take the information you posted and pick it apart and keep the debate alive.

I really hope they don't.


Oleg, please understand:


For many of us this is our main hobby, and your flight simulator is the only thing some of us fly. I would venture to say that most of us are obviously very loyal to your product and will continue to be in the future.

I would say the majority of us who post information here in ORR do so with a desire to see an already genre-best simulation get even better, and not to revise history. I hope that these forums can in some way benefit you and your company.


====================================


I hope your surgery goes well and that you have good health!





http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

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

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:46 PM
First of All, get better Oleg, i hope at last your health will be perfect.


Im very happy that you wrote this post. What was going on here on ORR, was simply ridiculous. Your proofs are perfect, anyone who has at least one eye and 70 IQ can consider that the current fw cockpit is ok. I hope a lot that with these references you put a point on this argument.


Spassibo

Best Regards,

VO101_MMaister

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:46 PM
http://www.pbase.com/image/5416380

Sorry I don't want to restart the discussion, I only want to know which version of 190 is shown in the picture, I linked above.
I ask because, it's the same type of ReVi as Oleg shows in his last pictures, but it is installed a lot higher.


... I repeat, I'm just interested in the version of this 190.

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
III/JG51_Atzebrueck

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
06-11-2003, 02:47 PM
Thanks for the information Oleg, once again you proved that the visibility problem is not your fault, but Kurt Tank's fault, hehehehe /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Now I wish you alot of luck in your next surgery. Take all the rest you need to safelly recover.

<center>
http://users.urbi.com.br/leocosta/images/jbkfbsig00.jpg

-= A.K.A. ====> [b]Jambock__16 in HyperLobby =-
ICQ - UIN#13080406



Graphics and Design by: Resev
Personal Avatar by: Kyrodus (Jambock__56)
Senta √° Pua!

1‚¬ļ GAvCaVi: http://www.gavca.com (1st Brazilian Virtual Fighter Sqdr "Senta √ P√¬ļa!")</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:49 PM
Dear Oleg, I hope you realise this:
__________________________________________________ __
All the criticism is actually a tribute to Il-/FB.
__________________________________________________ __

It is only because your sim is so good, that people have such high emotions about it.

It is fantastic that grown-up men all over the world will shout and scream and cry over some pixels moving across a computer screen.

This behaviour - unknown in the history of psychology - only exists because your simulator makes people feel they are in the real world.

That is a huge tribute to your work!

Oleg, I hope you will see it like that, and not be annoyed over criticism from the minority of whiners.

You really made the dreams of thousands of arm-chair pilots come alive!

Since I was a child I dreamt about flying in world war 2. I read all the books and now, with Il-2/Fb I feel that my dream has come a little bit alive!

Thanks for your commitment to this sim, even though you are undergoing surgery. Take it easy, get well, enjoy life and the company of your loved ones. You deserve it.


BTW: Your presentation above convinced me there's no error in the 190 modelling. Thanks!

Freycinet
<center>
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/delfin/SD/2001/flight/spitbf109/ellehammer-crop-for-il2-forum-reduced.jpg</center>
<center>My Il-2 web-site:</center><center><BIG>"Za Rodinu!"</BIG> (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/delfin/SD/2001/flight/il-2/index.htm)</center>
&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#59626B";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#2B3038";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#4A535C";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#4A535C";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#4A535C";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#4A535C";}</script>
&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://perso.wanadoo.fr/delfin/SD/2001/flight/spitbf109/ellehammer_350-reduced-tint.jpg' ; var a=document.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>

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:49 PM
Just incase anyone tries to go down that "Pilot Height or Butt Chute" path again.

Don't.

Its been debunked.


http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/Fw%20Chute.jpg


<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
06-11-2003, 02:49 PM
Oleg 2 points
Lufwhiners 0 points
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


<center>http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/images/bp_reich.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:50 PM
Way to go O!! That settles that. So umm.... now I gues this whole topic is officially done eh?? So on behalf of all the people on this forum who are sick of hearing about the FW-190 cockpit (like me) and who are too<FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> SICK<FONT COLOR="WHITE"> in their own minds to resist coming to these pathetic threads (also like me /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )..I hereby <FONT COLOR="RED">OFFICIALLY<FONT COLOR="WHITE"> and with great joy present this award to all the forum members who, through painstaking research, tireless devotion to their cause, highly detailed analysis and rivetingly presented displays of technical prowess and engineering slight of hand in a Herculean effort to make their point, provided months of active debate, created loads of bumpage, and comic relief to dozens of members of this forum.

<CENTER>http://www.sdplastics.com/dedhorse.gif

May your next project go as well, inspire as many, and provide as much bumpage to the gratefull members of the IL2 community.


Oleg I wish you all the best in your surgery.

&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 06/11/0309:54AM by Bearcat99

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:51 PM
And do not say me that, the fw190 is a dead horse becouse its cockpit view. With the right tactic, its deadly. The only thing what you ave to look after, that when you dive on you opponent you have to income in a flat angel. If the patch will repare its highspeed manouverablity its gonna punch!

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:52 PM
Atzebrueck, it's the A-4 which landed by mistake in England.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:54 PM
thx CHDT

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
III/JG51_Atzebrueck

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
06-11-2003, 02:55 PM
THX for your reply Oleg, even if i preferred the eyes nearer the revi /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And good luck for you surgery, of course.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 02:56 PM
Good health to you Oleg and my respect for taking your time in answering the soured posters.

I for one have never had a problem with fighting in the FW online or off!

http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/BP_Ham%20Sig.gif



Per Ardua Ad Astra

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 03:00 PM
Messermaister wrote:
- And do not say me that, the fw190 is a dead horse
- becouse its cockpit view. With the right tactic, its
- deadly. The only thing what you ave to look after,
- that when you dive on you opponent you have to
- income in a flat angel. If the patch will repare its
- highspeed manouverablity its gonna punch!


Make no mistake... I am talking about the topic..NOT THE PLANE!!! In fact I think the plane is a pretty hot bird!! all this talk about it made me start flying it and it is an AWESOME plane!!!! The first few times I flew it i didnt like it but I am really, really learning to appreciate it. Rolls like a dream!! The high speed hadling is a little lacluster but Oleg said that would be addressed so I am not concerned.. The plane rocks IMHO.

nearmiss wrote:
It would nice to just have a switch to allow translucent cockpit frames, it would be a great improvement. I hate the HUD because it is hard to maintain situational orientation in combat. I compensate for the highly obstructed cockpit views by using external views.

There are some visual examples of the translucent cockpit frames at the posting in the above referenced thread.

Why not just use the view with the floating gauges?

&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

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 03:00 PM
Glad you finally had time to finish this issue.

Iam too curious what version FW190 that is, you tend to get bit confused since some of cockpit pictures seem little different, is there really difference in FW190 cockpits when it comes down to version of the plane? Or is it just the work of camere being in different angle or something like that.

To me the shift-F1 view could be bit higher , it might help in words of playability. But mayby you look these things for the next sim.

Iam not intrested in opening this discussion again but one thing still puzzles me.

The FW190 had bad forward visibility , so clearly FW190 pilots couldnt use deflection shooting to get victories. How did the FW190 pilots then fight, did they boom from high altitude , get below the victim and suprise em?

Mayby this is stuff to discuss in new thread /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 03:05 PM
I thought the ORR was going to be for a flow of information and not for emotion. Obviously, that is not the case even on this topic area and after it has been discussed. Moderator, please lets keep this the priority. The 70 IQ statement, that is the typical response that we do not need in this area.
Oleg, I hope you medical condition improves and the best of luck.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 03:07 PM
Thanks Oleg, hope you'll be well soon...

Loved my FW190A-8 as it was, is and still will be!

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 03:08 PM
I do not question Olegs integrity,intelligence,or talent,I have always thought il2 was an incredible vehicle to get a realistic idea of what the pilots of WW2 experienced in the air.Anyways I think the nosedown flight issue is a deadender.Why do so many people think that the pilot sat ON his parachute?When every picture I have seen shows the parachute strapped to his back.There WAS a cushion on the seat bottom of the FW.I have not seen this mentioned by anyone else yet.Why? I have seen it in numerous sources, the one that Iown is "FW in action" squadron publications.I believe the problem is pilot position which is generally a judgement call,blueprints can only show the limitations.The idea that a pilot in combat was restricted to the forward view in F.B.il2 is obviously not true.He could adjust himself,and his seat.And I think the issue of refractionwhich evidently cannot be simulated,is having a much more negative effect on the FW than on the other planes.And I understand that if a pilot stretches his body to look across the top of the nose that he may not be able to utilize the gunsight.But the earlier that he can position the nose of the plane to match the enemy and begin to put up a wall of fire is more important than looking through the gunsight initially,he could use the gunsight when close to dead six after.This is what I think I have learned about how the FW was used,from this sim.I think at very close range deflection that they may not have used the gunsight because they couldnt,and diddnt have to.Of course all aircraft had this possibility.But with the veiws of other aircraft in this sim it is less of a handicap to be solidly fixed in position.Therefore I believe that an exception should be made in regards to the FW.Since reality cannot be duplicated a compromise should be instituted.I trust that the flaws in the F.M. will be addressed in the patch.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 03:08 PM
Bump - a Shift F1 view like on the 262 would be nice, it might be a nice compromise that would not affect realism.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 03:11 PM
Take your rest and get well soon Oleg!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"degustibus non disputandum"

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/porsche2.gif'</script>

&lt;script>var a=document.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;o.height=70;o.width=130</script>

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

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

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFFFF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#8B0000";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#8B0000";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 03:17 PM
Sorry Oleg i like your job but for the Fw190 forward View you are wrong ..
My great father was a FW190 pilot "Haerens Walter ... "

And i always said that the visibilty is very good ..
Hopefully for him the poor old ... looooll

OK i know you visited some museum with old FW190 but in new's Focke the glasses were very transparents and not like a rail just under the revi ..

I know it is difficult to change and your game is near reality but accept this little post .. ( a poor old man ... ) SRY for my english it is not my mother's Language ..

http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/jabo/FWREDNUAGE.jpg

Cdt Groupe Jabo http://membres.lycos.fr/jabos/STARTT.HTM

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 03:18 PM
I knew this thread would turn into a rant about doing something to make up for the lack of visibility.

Since its been proven that the cockpit is modelled quite correctly we're now going to ask for things that were'nt present in real life.

At first the argument was for the sake of realism.

Everyone remembers that right?

"We just want it done right Oleg!" is all we've heard.

"We demand the most accurate sim ever made

Now that it has been proven right, we start discussing how to make it play better.

"We just want to improve playability!"

"Give us invisible struts!"

"Make it like the 262"

We're all gonna have to let it go at some point.

Why not wait until the patch is released and see if the speed is corrected?

That seems like a realism issue that should be addressed.

<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>

Message Edited on 06/11/0310:20AM by USAFHelos

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 03:18 PM
Oleg, thanks for posting the pics and addressing the issue. Hope that you are recovering well from your surgery. Looking at your images only confirms what I've been seeing. For example, looking at your Ta-152 images illustrates that the sim view does not match. Why? Because the sim image has the same amount of lower frame obstruction as the photo...and as you say the photo is from a much higher angle than the sightline (since we are looking down the dash). Therefore the two images should not show the same amount of bar if the sim model matched the real aircraft.

I'm not sure what to make of the other two photos in the middle...the Revi is sitting so low it is obscured by the padding? That doesn't make any sense at all and is not what other photos have shown, particularly the photo from the front toward the pilot in an *operational* aircraft. It does not show the Revi as being obscured by padding.

On the other hand, the bottom photo seems to illustrate the same problem in the sim as the Ta-152 image. The photo is taken from a higher than eye position and shows a bit of bar...not much surprise to that. By the looks of it, if the camera position was at the center of the gunsight line, then the bar would disappear.

Another thing missing in all of this is the considerable refraction effect of this particular aircraft. Yes, I know you can't model it directly, but there has been considerable discussion of how moving the lower frame out of the way might fix the problem. Folks have measured about 2 degrees over the nose in the sim. Do you have any images in the sim that will illustrate that it is more like 4+ degrees as you have stated before? (This also coincides with test report results we have seen posted.)

I'm NOT saying that the entire frame and struts are unrealistic and I have not doubted your modeling of all that. I also realize what happens when you try to move the pilots eyes around in that regard. The strut thickness issue is one of those "real neck/head movement" and bino vision issues that can't be modeled easily.

Looks like we will just have to agree to disagree. The info you have posted in my opinion only provides more evidence to support the idea that the lower frame bar should not be in the way, that the current view is around 2 degrees vs. 4 historical, and that part of this missing view is 1 to 1.5 degrees of refraction.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 03:28 PM
Thank you Oleg for taking the time to answer (again).

For anybody interested:

Pilot view as is:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/one.jpg


BAD visibility! And not 100% correct. (Edit: No, actually it is correct. But there are other correct head positions, that offer better vision. Imho that is.)

Pilot view raised head:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/two.jpg


Better. But definitly: Wrong. (guess everybody agrees.)

But what about moving the pilots head closer to the gunsight instead of raising it?



Message Edited on 06/11/0303:32PM by JtD

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 03:29 PM
IV_JG51_Swine wrote:
- I thought the ORR was going to be for a flow of
- information and not for emotion. Obviously, that is
- not the case even on this topic area and after it
- has been discussed. Moderator, please lets keep
- this the priority. The 70 IQ statement, that is
- the typical response that we do not need in this
- area.
- Oleg, I hope you medical condition improves and the
- best of luck.
-
-
-
-

Pls dont try to distort my words. I didnt become personal.

Thank You

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 03:34 PM
You forward view is BAD Oleg sry ....
Correct transparency ?.. do not forget The revi defection ...

The Voice of a Customer ....

http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/jabo/FWREDNUAGE.jpg

Cdt Groupe Jabo http://membres.lycos.fr/jabos/STARTT.HTM

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 03:35 PM
Can anyone post the angle in which the guns fire in relation to the pitch axis and forward view?

How about the forward view over the dash while the aircraft is in level flight?

Or are we just taking pictures on the ground at rest and modeling the cockpit as such? What about the aircrafts center of gravity fully loaded?

What were the differences between the initial 190 we were given in IL-2, and the one we see today in FB? What about the gun shake and FM stability, as well as the gunnery accuracy and damage model compared to other planes in the game? If this is modeled correctly in FB, why can I not find literature from actual pilots substantiating this modeling.

Everything I read from actual pilots of the 190 describe a solid, and well designed aircraft with excellent visibility on par with the P-51 etc.... In almost every regard, and on equal footing a match for any fighter the allies had. I don't think this is properly represented by the modeling in IL-2/FB.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 03:36 PM
Spaceeba (phonetic) Oleg! for taking the time to deal with this issue. Your time and input is highly appreciated, not many developers care so much. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


I, for one, am satisfied that the cockpit forward visibility is correct. Good luck with the surgery and recovery, and good health.

CG-

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 03:55 PM
FW190fan wrote:
- Oleg,
-
- Thank You! (Zdrastvutye) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- Sure, it's not what I wanted to hear but I really do
- appreciate you taking the time to post this
- information.
-
- As one who was not pleased with the forward view in
- the FW190 with the cockpit on, and posted several
- times to that effect I feel compelled to say you
- have made your point well and for me this
- issue(which got way out of hand) is finished.
-
- Some may feel compelled to take the information you
- posted and pick it apart and keep the debate alive.
-
- I really hope they don't.
-
- Oleg, please understand:
-
- For many of us this is our main hobby, and your
- flight simulator is the only thing some of us fly. I
- would venture to say that most of us are obviously
- very loyal to your product and will continue to be
- in the future.
-
- I would say the majority of us who post information
- here in ORR do so with a desire to see an already
- genre-best simulation get even better, and not to
- revise history. I hope that these forums can in some
- way benefit you and your company.
-
-
- ====================================
-
-
- I hope your surgery goes well and that you have good
- health!


I know you feel strongly about the 190. So much more I commend you for this posting. With your maturity here you just got my respect! Well put!

Freycinet
<center>
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/delfin/SD/2001/flight/spitbf109/ellehammer-crop-for-il2-forum-reduced.jpg</center>
<center>My Il-2 web-site:</center><center><BIG>"Za Rodinu!"</BIG> (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/delfin/SD/2001/flight/il-2/index.htm)</center>
&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#59626B";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#2B3038";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#4A535C";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#4A535C";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#4A535C";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#4A535C";}</script>
&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://perso.wanadoo.fr/delfin/SD/2001/flight/spitbf109/ellehammer_350-reduced-tint.jpg' ; var a=document.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>

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 03:56 PM
JtDs pictures are very good ... at the moment the normal view is even worse than the Shift+F1 view.

IMO Oleg's picture that shows the raised point of view is an exaggeration, of what we want. IMO some of the photos, which were posted in thos many FW190 threads clearly show, that the pilot was able lean forward and above, to get a better view over the nose (they didn't fly whilst leaning against the headrest all the time).

I really want to have the possibility to lean forward, when i dive down on the enemy.


The 190 is so frustrating to fly because, there are different aspects, that are only frustrating, if they occur together /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .
The bad forwardvisibility wouldn't be so frustrating, if the highspeedmaneuverability wouldn't be the worst of all planes.
The heavy elevator isn't that bad if you fly on a server with deactivated cockpit (ctrl+F1) view.
The weak 20mm cannons (IMO all 20mm are too weak at the moment) wouldn't be a problem, if you could hold the enemy in your sight longer than 1/100 second /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (for which you need a better view and a better highspeedhandling).

If you have to fly on FR servers, the 190 is by far the most frustrating plane. Not because I don't know how to fly it, but because if you want to survive a mission, you have to fly B&Z with it and if you want to attack the enemy he warps out of your sight and
there is no way, that you could do anything against it. In the 109 I'm able to make a rough maneuver to get him in the sight as long as it is needed to shoot at him, because its elevator and sight are a bit better.

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
III/JG51_Atzebrueck

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 06/11/0305:04PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:02 PM
Personally I think it would be awesome to be able to toggleback and forth between those high and low views in ALL planes to mimic the pilot movement.And another thing,why did they raise the canopy glass in the later FWs?So he could see even more of the front I think,by letting him stretch even more.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:03 PM
LOL, Atzebr√ľck....you want to be able to LEAN FORWARD while DIVING on the enemy?

Yeah, when accelerating from 350 to over 600 knots strapped in the seat you will have an easy time leaning forward, really.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:05 PM
Can anyone post the angle in which the guns fire in relation to the pitch axis and forward view?

How about the actual 190's forward view over the dash while the aircraft is in level flight? Is this not modeled? Then how possibly can we consider this cockpit modeling accurate? Oleg?

Or are we just taking pictures on the ground at rest and modeling the cockpit as such? What about the aircrafts center of gravity fully loaded? Is this beyond question?

What were the differences between the initial 190 we were given in IL-2, and the one we see today in FB? What about the gun shake and FM stability, as well as the gunnery accuracy and damage model compared to other planes in the game? If this is modeled correctly in FB, why can I not find literature from actual pilots substantiating this modeling.

Everything I read from actual pilots of the 190 describe a solid, and well designed aircraft with excellent visibility on par with the P-51 etc.... In almost every regard, and on equal footing a match for any fighter the allies had. I don't think this is properly represented by the modeling in IL-2/FB.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:06 PM
Nowi, if you use the Shift+F1 view of the Russian planes the pilot leans forward, even if the plane accelerates from 300 to 600 km/h in 10 seconds.

Maybe the Russian pilots are stronger than the German ones and don't need no headrest /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
III/JG51_Atzebrueck

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 06/11/0305:13PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:08 PM
See this picture Oleg if it is not clear ????

No rail just glasses .?.???


THE VOICE OF CUSTOMER ... NO SO STUPID AS YOU THINK ...
HTTP://airstrip.free.fr/TEMP/OLEG.jpeg

http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/jabo/FWREDNUAGE.jpg

Cdt Groupe Jabo http://membres.lycos.fr/jabos/STARTT.HTM


Message Edited on 06/11/0303:11PM by Jabo_Walter

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:11 PM
Jabo_Walter wrote:
- Se this picture Oleg if it is not clear ????
-
- No rail just glasses .?.???

To be totally honest you don't see anything because of the sun reflection.

&lt;script>var avatar='http://www.opzolder.net/dsa/forum/f2.gif'</script>&lt;script>var a=document.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=avatar</script>

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/images/322.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:13 PM
Jabo_Walter wrote:
- Se this picture Oleg if it is not clear ????
-
- No rail just glasses .?.???
-


With all due respect Jabo. Not every plane in the FW series is going to be exactly alike in production.

There will be minor changes due to design techniques or supply of parts.

Since this cockpit was possibly either A: A mock-up or B: Looks like a reconstruction it may have subtle changes.

Oleg and Co have taken a base model and worked on that.

I think you are taking this too far now!

http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/BP_Ham%20Sig.gif



Per Ardua Ad Astra

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:16 PM
No, it's an original A-8/R4, once flown by Heinz B√¬§r!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:18 PM
Please my friends BE serious TEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

You love Oleg like me ........................

BUT SHEEEEEEEEETT True is true nOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/jabo/FWREDNUAGE.jpg

Cdt Groupe Jabo http://membres.lycos.fr/jabos/STARTT.HTM

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:19 PM
Good luck with the surgery Oleg.



335th_GRViper
www.hellenic-sqn.gr (http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr)

http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/Images/main/greece_small.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:21 PM
Please Sirs .. I beleive you .. Please believe Me ..
what can i do bring a FW in front of Your House ...

OLEG please I am sure I seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee it ...

http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/jabo/FWREDNUAGE.jpg

Cdt Groupe Jabo http://membres.lycos.fr/jabos/STARTT.HTM

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:23 PM
Jabo_Walter wrote:
- Please my friends BE serious TEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
-
- You love Oleg like me ........................
-
- BUT SHEEEEEEEEETT True is true
- nOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-

But as I have indicated Oleg has show us the pictures and subtle changes will be found from time to time.

Christ the Jaguar I flew in the RAF had a different design of forced pressure jet over the winedscreen to clear the rain off that a number of the mudmovers which were built only 6 months prior had!

This argument holds no water anymore as Oleg has provided his pics and is using these as his design schematics.

http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/BP_Ham%20Sig.gif



Per Ardua Ad Astra

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:26 PM
Pictures say a 1000 words!

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:26 PM
And the moral of the story is: STFU you bloody whiners! If you're not satisfied with this man's work, then make your own sim. Idjits!

<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com</center>
<center>http://www.geocities.com/defterlizard/PH1.txt </center>
<center><font color="yellow"><h4>BlitzPig_Lizard</h4></center>

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:27 PM
OK the pictures of Oleg are correct mine are False ..


Bye ..


IT is not possible to discust "Pay be Happy and Shut up .. "


A old FW pilot ... poor present Time .............


Continue in error .............

My last post ..

I speak in your language are you able to speak in mine ???

OK .. Understand .. BYE AGAIN ...
http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/jabo/FWREDNUAGE.jpg

Cdt Groupe Jabo http://membres.lycos.fr/jabos/STARTT.HTM


Message Edited on 06/11/0303:30PM by Jabo_Walter

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:29 PM
Honestly.

I don't see how anyone could try to model a snapshot on a computer monitor and try to justify it as a realistic view.

This is bizarre. Even the most basic human engineer understands that the eye is many more times more precise than any computer representation. Not to mention the complete lack of peripheral vision.

Oleg why you would even try to model something one for one compared to the real world is beyond me.

What you end up with is as little realism as some of the arcade type games. Modeled simply in the opposite direction. And further, this type of modeling introduces advantages and disadvantages to certain flight models that didn't exist in reality.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:31 PM
HTTP://airstrip.free.fr/TEMP/OLEG.jpeg

That picture shows the steel frame on the bottom of the armor glass plate, which, when viewed from the inside, will be the rail we are talking about here.

So no, this picture is not "no rail, just glass". It's just viewed from the wrong side.

And yes, I think the remaining centimeters in question are down due to refraction. Nothing we can do about it, really.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:42 PM
POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
The P51 is the same will see your reactions .........



LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLL

definitively the last .. post ..

http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/jabo/FWREDNUAGE.jpg

Cdt Groupe Jabo http://membres.lycos.fr/jabos/STARTT.HTM

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:48 PM
"Jabo_Walter", tu mir einen Gefallen und h√¬∂r auf dich hier wie ein Idiot zu benehmen!

Wird ja langsam peinlich!

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:53 PM
nein ein idiooooooooooooote mit ein Oleg FW...........

Proooooost kamaraden .. und .. auf ...

http://ibelgique.ifrance.com/jabo/FWREDNUAGE.jpg

Cdt Groupe Jabo http://membres.lycos.fr/jabos/STARTT.HTM


Message Edited on 06/11/03‚ 03:54PM by Jabo_Walter

Message Edited on 06/11/0303:56PM by Jabo_Walter

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 04:57 PM
@leonid

. ignore hilft in solchen F√¬§llen am ehesten

@ Atzebrueck

This isn‚¬īt the cockpit of an A-4 but of the A-3 of Arnim Faber, which means that the Revi we see there is the older Revi 12C instead of the more modern Revi 16B we have in the Fw190 series.

---------------------------
http://home.t-online.de/home/340045970094-0001/lwskins_banner_gross.jpg (http://www.lwskins.de.vu)
Historical Skins for Luftwaffe-Fighters

Message Edited on 06/11/0304:58PM by csThor

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 05:07 PM
Well..where are the evidence of fw 190: flying position..
German/British/american pilots whom flew 190 said it flew
"nose down" so thats why the forward vision was good! and thats why the 190 was a great air to ground aircraft...but in fb it flies "nose up" when you cant see anything in front of you,unless youre in a dive...
Personally..i cant wait till the "white one" fly`s again..
then well see...



--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 05:15 PM
Where does the FW in FB fly nose up? You just can't stand that you've been wrong for all those months of whining /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .
Get a live man!

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

<table border="0" width="100%"><tr><td width="50%"><font size=2><font size="-1">Come and see the brilliant light
don't let your emotions mask your sight
it's the manifestation of a deeper fight
that affects me and you
my optimism was running high
a new world order was on my mind
but I couldn't believe it when I heard them say
they're blowing it away

and the fertile cresent is burning today
and baby my emotions are too
the cradle of humanity has led us all astray
and we're all in this together don't you know
‚¬īcause our species has nowhere else to go </font></font></td><td width="50%"><font size=2><font size="-1">Aggression rears it's ugly head
retaliation brings further dread
the two are linked by unseen threads
that wind back through time
I don't agree with this outdated trend
nationalism is an evil friend
but hatred is instilled by invisible lines
drawn in our minds

and the fertile cresent is haunting us today
and baby our instincts are too
the ghost of humanity is warning us this way
and i think we all should heed it don't you know
‚¬īcause we've got nowhere else to go </font></font></td></tr></table>

"Fertile Cresent" by Bad Religion

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 05:27 PM
All the FW I have met online "flew" nose down. Usually with a wing missing or a dead pilot inside /i/smilies/16x16_robot-tongue.gif

<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
06-11-2003, 05:27 PM
Until this moment, I left you debating about FW190 without talk, but... now it's all clear, not?
Sorry for you all that disagree with Oleg, but...
I fly any FW190 marvellosly here in Il2/FB, with full difficulty settings. No problems to aim targets nor to look around (or at least not worse than historycal reality. In real WWII fighters you should also take in consideration a lot of vibrations and other disturbing effects to your eyes, that you pratically don't feel in a computer simulator).

Oleg has done a great work on the FW190.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 05:32 PM
I just want to point one thing, im not wihning. Notgunsight view is ok, but gunsigt view in FB is little higher so lower strut is bigger then. If gunsight view would be at the same high that would be ok imho (im talking about head position). So just move head right and foward, not up. Just my 2 cents. Maybe Im wrong, maybe Im stupid, I used to fw cocpit like it is but looking on Olegs fotos and at the game i went to those conclusion. Case end. Good bye.

Fly fast, stay high, shoot to kill.

Message Edited on 06/11/0304:53PM by JG300_And

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 05:32 PM
Macchinista wrote:
- Until this moment, I left you debating about FW190
- without talk, but... now it's all clear, not?
- Sorry for you all that disagree with Oleg, but...
- I fly any FW190 marvellosly here in Il2/FB, with
- full difficulty settings. No problems to aim targets
- nor to look around (or at least not worse than
- historycal reality. In real WWII fighters you should
- also take in consideration a lot of vibrations and
- other disturbing effects to your eyes, that you
- pratically don't feel in a computer simulator).
-
- Oleg has done a great work on the FW190.
-
-
Well said.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 05:41 PM
ok the man has talk, he is right, i agree with u, i tough it would be may be wrong but u are right

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

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 05:53 PM
M√¬∂rk√¬∂,

From the FW190 drawings and pictures presented in various threads it is pretty clear to me at least that the "nose down flying position" is an illusion created by the shape of the aircraft fuselage. It seems to me that in level flight the lowest part of FW190 is lowest part of the engine section. On top & behind the section the nose rises towards the cockpit and also the bottom of the aircraft rises towards the tail so it looks like it is flying nose down, but the nose is not actually pointing downwards. If it was, the propellor axis would point downwards and the propellor would pull the FW downwards which is illogical since the purpose of the aircraft is to stay in the air.

Of course real pilots could take a better look downwards by looking over the revi along the aircraft nose.

My guess is that many allied pilots (Closterman for example) who fought the FW saw the "nose down position" and naturally thought that it had to have superb view downwards.

Then again I might be wrong.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 05:56 PM
I agree,Oleg is the best sim creator,but that dosnt mean all this controversy about FW is based on foolishness.Aside from the refraction issue,the physical rendering of all the cockpits are near perfection as far as I can tell from photos and looking at real aircraft.But the human element is what is restricted in all aircraft,but this effects the Fw more than most.I still think that an answer would be to enable a toggle to switch back and forth between a pure gunsight view and a view that sim. a pilot stretching to look significantly higher.That would be implemented into all planes.It seems so elementry to me that a pilot would stretch as much as possible to be able to see more.Maybe putting another view is not practical,I dont know.All I know is that pilots were able to compensate for somethings by moving their body within the restrictions of their cockpit and harness.

ZG77_Nagual
06-11-2003, 06:04 PM
Thanks Oleg

I was online last night in my beloved a5 - doing reasonably well (for being rusty and climbed upon by children) against a well-flown yak. No complaints here - though I think addressing the gun damage model will fix the 190 - I find the a5 to be every bit the plane it was in FB - maybe faster.

Take care Oleg - and don't sweat the small stuff.

Thank you again for taking time to put these pics up.

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

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 06:07 PM
Yeah..and the conclusion is..once again...oleg and the rest of you know better how 190 flies than that the real pilots who actually flew it...hooray..

--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 06:08 PM
Gentlemen, may you have a look here:

http://www.pbase.com/image/17714038


On this picture, it seems to me (but it's hard to tell something from a picture in a sense or to the opposite sense) that the camera point of view is about at the height of the pilot's eyes.

And on this picture, the upper part of the bar "seems" to be at the same height or even a little below (from the pilot's point of view) from the upper part of the leather protection front part.

Cheers,


P.S. I've also photographed lots of time aircraft cockpits and I "smell" that this picture was taken with a 35mm (best focale for cockpit shots if they are not too small): human field of view is 34,5mm in the 24x36 format.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 06:14 PM
Bst wishes to you Oleg-- and take care, I have few doctors in my own family /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

higher position of the head can be hardly done, as also the revi should be lifted up. and there is no space cause of the armored glass, + guns should be elevated higher, well thats clear.

but the thick strut on the bottom is simply too thick!! if the first photo is taken even from a little higher position, and the strut is smaller than in fb, with eyes at normal position it should be visible even less.

The strut! That damned strut! On the pic it hardly covers any part of the gunsight, and moreover, we are loking from above a bit. if looking straight, there should not be visible, but in FB 20% of the gunsigth is blocked by it. THAT is still wrong. The strut should be as thin as in Shift+F1 view. Why it gets so much thicker in gunsight position??

Best regards, nebojis and take care

juraj

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

"The 190, in my hands at least, turns like a brick with a parachute behind it, but I don't mind; elevator gets stuck in cement at speeds as low as 550kph, but I don't mind; I can't see for crap out the pit, but I don't mind; touchy as hell and hard to aim with, but I don't mind; no, none of these things p!ss me off. What really gets me is that the zoom climb it was supposedly famous for, the same climb it supposedly exploited to be able to "stay and fight" with the much tighter turning spitfires, just doesn't exist. It's not like it's zoom climb doesn't make it one of the best in FB as it should be, it's that the way it's currently modelled it's one of the WORST!

Flying with proper tactics and energy is a BS argument. Even an IL-2 with 1000m altitude advantage is deadly, in fact, it's probably deadlier than a 190 with the same advantage! Remind me again which one was the fighter?!"

(with the courtesy of Jetbuff /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 06:20 PM
WalterMitty wrote:
- I agree,Oleg is the best sim creator,but that dosnt
- mean all this controversy about FW is based on
- foolishness.Aside from the refraction issue,the
- physical rendering of all the cockpits are near
- perfection as far as I can tell from photos and
- looking at real aircraft.But the human element is
- what is restricted in all aircraft,but this effects
- the Fw more than most.I still think that an answer
- would be to enable a toggle to switch back and forth
- between a pure gunsight view and a view that sim. a
- pilot stretching to look significantly higher.That
- would be implemented into all planes.It seems so
- elementry to me that a pilot would stretch as much
- as possible to be able to see more.Maybe putting
- another view is not practical,I dont know.All I know
- is that pilots were able to compensate for
- somethings by moving their body within the
- restrictions of their cockpit and harness.
-


Excellent point!

What we have here is the Human Element! This however cannot be modelled in any great detail not even in the Military Simulators I flew on!



http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/BP_Ham%20Sig.gif



Per Ardua Ad Astra

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 06:22 PM
CHDT wrote:
- Gentlemen, may you have a look here:
-
- On this picture, it seems to me (but it's hard to
- tell something from a picture in a sense or to the
- opposite sense) that the camera point of view is
- about at the height of the pilot's eyes.
-
- And on this picture, the upper part of the bar
- "seems" to be at the same height or even a little
- below (from the pilot's point of view) from the
- upper part of the leather protection front part.
-
- Cheers,
-
-
- P.S. I've also photographed lots of time aircraft
- cockpits and I "smell" that this picture was taken
- with a 35mm (best focale for cockpit shots if they
- are not too small): human field of view is 34,5mm in
- the 24x36 format.
-



Ummm...that aircraft is sitting on the ground and resting on its tail wheel. That means it is positioned in a nose up fashion.

The photographer is obviously not sitting in the cockpit and he/she is standing level and to the left.

The angle of his shot once again confirms that the base would not be seen by the pilot.

What your photo does confirm (again) is how little room there is between the top of the dash and the top bar of the windscreen. Leaves very little room for a spectacular forward view.

So I guess that photo served a purpose after all.

How many times does this have to be done?

<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>

Message Edited on 06/11/0301:24PM by USAFHelos

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 06:23 PM
You guys aren't going to drop this are you?

Act like men, have a slice of humble pie and move on.

You have been proven wrong.

Stop posting and start flying.

S!

<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
06-11-2003, 06:26 PM
Get well Oleg.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 06:28 PM
ElAurens wrote:
- You guys aren't going to drop this are you?
-
- Act like men, have a slice of humble pie and move
- on.
-
- You have been proven wrong.
-
- Stop posting and start flying.
-
- S!
-
- <center><FONT
- color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> <img
- src="http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40h
- ome.gif">
- </img>.
-
- "Courage is the price that Life exacts for granting
- peace."
-
---Amelia Earhart--

Proven wrong how?..can you explain? those pictures prove nothing...or do they?

--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 06:30 PM
"Ummm...that aircraft is sitting on the ground and resting on its tail wheel."


This one is level to the ground.

Cheers,

http://www.dargies.de/Modellbau/BilderFW190/Rote13_01.jpg


http://www.dargies.de/Modellbau/BilderFW190/Rote13_02.jpg


http://www.dargies.de/Modellbau/BilderFW190/Rote13_03.jpg


http://www.dargies.de/Modellbau/BilderFW190/Rote13_04.jpg



Sorry, on the last picture, my eyes tell me (they're probably lying) that the upper part of the bar is not higher that the leather protection front part.

But I agree on a point, this subject is a...

http://www.etriggers.com/gallery/logo.jpg



... so let's talk rather of the superheavy elevator or the ueberfrequent stalls of the 190 in FB /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 06:35 PM
I'm stopping by just to wish good luck to Oleg for the surgery.

The rest of this thread sucks (I'm referring to the incurable whiners...) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

<div align="center">
BlitzPig_Count

http://www.xpresslive.it/forum/firma.jpg


http://www.xpresslive.it/forum/blitz_anim.gif
</div>

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 06:39 PM
CHDT wrote:
- "Ummm...that aircraft is sitting on the ground and
- resting on its tail wheel."
-
-
- This one is level to the ground.
-
- Cheers,
-
<img
- src="http://www.dargies.de/Modellbau/BilderFW190/R
- ote13_01.jpg">
-
-
<img
- src="http://www.dargies.de/Modellbau/BilderFW190/R
- ote13_02.jpg">
-
-
<img
- src="http://www.dargies.de/Modellbau/BilderFW190/R
- ote13_03.jpg">
-
-
<img
- src="http://www.dargies.de/Modellbau/BilderFW190/R
- ote13_04.jpg">
-
-
-
- Sorry, on the last picture, my eyes tell me (they're
- probably lying) that the upper part of the bar is
- not higher that the leather protection front part.
-
- But I agree on a point, this subject is a...
-
http://www.etriggers.com/gallery/logo.jpg
-
-
-
- ... so let's talk rather of the superheavy elevator
- or the ueberfrequent stalls of the 190 in FB /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

So i have to take the impression its not flying?? or am i wrong???


--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 06:46 PM
It was just a little joke in my very poor English. Not a clever idea on this forum because the whine-whiners are very solemn, serious and responsible people /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://musique.baroque.free.fr/images/courtisan.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 06:50 PM
This is an awesome picture and really says a lot.

No wonder I've read so many FW pilot reports about their eyes getting irritated from the cordite.

Actually its kind of silly since I knew the guns were there, but to see the cowling off always makes a picture seem clearer.

http://www.dargies.de/Modellbau/BilderFW190/Rote13_02.jpg


<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
06-11-2003, 06:54 PM
"This is an awesome picture and really says a lot."


This one says a lot too:

http://www.pbase.com/image/17683307

This one too:

http://www.pbase.com/image/17682614


Cheers,


P.S. At least, Kurt Tank didn't forget to make the height of the seat adjustable on the ground /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 07:00 PM
THX for those last pictures! i was joking too(if you didnt notice that/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ) from the first picture when you imagine yourself on the place of the pilot..i think you have quite good view over the nose,dont you think?

--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 07:02 PM
I never really understood the seat adjustment argument.

You can make it go up.....

You can make it go down....

In the end a Pilot would want to place his eyes in a position that would be somewhere between the top of the dash and the bottom of the bar of the winscreen.

Kind of exactly like what is provided in the game?

Its just too bad that is such a small area to work with.

I guess if the fuselage of the Focke-Wulf didn'r run all the way through the cockpit until it ended up becoming the dash, it would be a hell of a lot easier to see out of.

Rear vis is fantastic though isn't it?

Its just that damn tiny little area you have to look out of for the forward view.


<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
06-11-2003, 07:09 PM
JESUS people, drop it already!

if you move the seat up or down, you'll screw up the aiming recticle! so just drop this ***king debate over the cockpit and at the very least start whining about something else, or at the most leave this forum so we could enjoy ourselves!

Spets

<center> -A Proud Member of Sparky's Post Wh0res.- </center> <center> <center><a href="java_script:alert['Oink')"> http://spets.hostmb.com/blitz_anim.gif (java_script:alert['Oink!'))</center><center> http://home-1.concepts.nl/~wbn0066/images/emoticons/grenade.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 07:13 PM
USAFHelos wrote:
- I never really understood the seat adjustment
- argument.
-
- You can make it go up.....

Not in the game
-
- You can make it go down....

Not in the game
-
- In the end a Pilot would want to place his eyes in a
- position that would be somewhere between the top of
- the dash and the bottom of the bar of the winscreen.

Usually they have to, dont they???
-
- Kind of exactly like what is provided in the game?

yes..except the viewpoint is the lowest possible!!!
-
- Its just too bad that is such a small area to work
- with.

or expertize to work with...

-
- I guess if the fuselage of the Focke-Wulf didn'r run
- all the way through the cockpit until it ended up
- becoming the dash, it would be a hell of a lot
- easier to see out of.

too bad somebody invented the engines..dont you think?
-
- Rear vis is fantastic though isn't it?

Doesnt help when youre landing...or does it?(At least thats historically correct!!!)
-
- Its just that damn tiny little area you have to look
- out of for the forward view.

for now or on the ground..yes it is..for real(and in flight)... not!
-
-
-
- <center><img
- src="http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/1NewHelos1.g
- if" alt="Whop! Whop! ">
- <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.freewebs
- pace.com/Helos.gif');</script>



--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

Thera
06-11-2003, 07:18 PM
I don't know about most of you guys but I'd trust an engineer's analysis of the issue before I'd trust an emotional old Veteran.

I'm not sure what part of the world you guys are from but the ones here sound more like Grandpa Simpson than Stephen Hawkin. Oleg mentioned long ago that pilot "storys" weren't going to be used as the gospel, and he's 100% right for making that decision.

Acting like a bunch of spoiled children isn't going to do anything, regardless of the actual argument.



LLv26_Morko wrote:
- Yeah..and the conclusion is..once again...oleg and
- the rest of you know better how 190 flies than that
- the real pilots who actually flew it...hooray..
-
---That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 07:24 PM
Thera wrote:
- I don't know about most of you guys but I'd trust an
- engineer's analysis of the issue before I'd trust an
- emotional old Veteran.
-
- I'm not sure what part of the world you guys are
- from but the ones here sound more like Grandpa
- Simpson than Stephen Hawkin. Oleg mentioned long
- ago that pilot "storys" weren't going to be used as
- the gospel, and he's 100% right for making that
- decision.
-
- Acting like a bunch of spoiled children isn't going
- to do anything, regardless of the actual argument.
-
-
-
-
- LLv26_Morko wrote:
-- Yeah..and the conclusion is..once again...oleg and
-- the rest of you know better how 190 flies than that
-- the real pilots who actually flew it...hooray..
--
----That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--
-
-
-
-
-

Right!..Engineers know everything!!!(Remember tchernobyl)
Engineers flew the planes Right?? Come on...


--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 07:33 PM
LLv26_Morko,

Will you be calling those of us who find remarks to be silly "Scum with no honor"?

It seems to be the latest craze with you LLv26 types.

<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>

Message Edited on 06/11/0302:42PM by USAFHelos

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 07:37 PM
Youve seen me make those Scum without honor remarks???
Have you???

Were not robots you know..we have mind of our own...(i thought of putting an insult towards certain nation in here,but i didnt!!!)


--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 07:47 PM
This debate "engineers-pilots" makes me think to the movie "The right Stuff". Tom Wolfe's book was also very good /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 07:52 PM
As one can see from the photos. All one has to do is **** their head to either side, and he can easily see forward around the forward cockpit obstruction.

Further, even though this aircraft is sitting apparently level on the ground, one cannot distinguish the attitude of the nose, or in-flight forward cockpit view and its relationship to the pilot from this picture.

Irregardless, neither of these realities are modeled in the sim.

I'm still amazed that anyone could take one apparent view deduced only from a still photo or view from the cockpit at rest and on the ground, and be so obsessed with this one characteristic to justify the modeling in IL-2/FB. Especially considering the many other obvious characteristics of the total cockpit visibility of this warplane that aren't modeled or even considered. Or that are left out due to the relatively limited forward views of computer monitors themselves.

What do we have in the sim, possibly 30 degrees forward, and in reality 180 degrees. No one can justify this as realistic, nor can they justify the cockpit modeling in IL-2/FB as realistic from a visual or practical standpoint. As we see some flight models are simply penalized to a much higher degree than others.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 07:53 PM
Facts without theory is trivia.
Trivia without facts is Bu**sh*t.
Facts AND theory is Oleg
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
s!

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

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 07:54 PM
CHDT wrote:
- This debate "engineers-pilots" makes me think to the
- movie "The right Stuff". Tom Wolfe's book was also
- very good /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-

Man ...When youre right ..youre right!!!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Great book..great Movie/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 07:56 PM
"Further, even though this aircraft is sitting apparently level on the ground, one cannot distinguish the attitude of the nose, or in-flight forward cockpit view and its relationship to the pilot from this picture."


Probably Bentley draw this 190 in level flight attitude, I'm not sure to say the truth:

http://www.pbase.com/image/17701712

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 08:01 PM
Which seems like a "nose down" attitude...
Funny how real pilots ""Think"" 190 flew Nose down..
But Other Experts(who`m Never flown it!) decided it flew "nose up" or Level..


--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 08:02 PM
While nobody may be able to model the human element in any detail,Ithink my suggestion would help compensate for that in a way that does increase realism.I also believe that both the very close and further back views that we have in the cockpit now are less important and seem rather unrealistic the way the target appears to change in size.I think the toggle up/down look would give us the benefit of pilot movement in a limited degree that would just add to the many reasons il2 is the best.Pilots did shoot without the gunsight on occasions,and I expect some were quite skilled.Plus some aircraft would still be able to use the gunsight,due to its high mount and would open up deflection shots in full real for everybody.But if Oleg says its not practical,then I say O-Well,thats life.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 08:05 PM
And my deepest apologizes, but when I look at the Bentley's drawing, my eyes tell me that the upper part of the bar is certainly not higher than the leather front protection part, whining or not! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.pbase.com/image/17717755

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 08:06 PM
He draughted the a/c with the a/c's datum line parallel to the ground.


CHDT wrote:

-
- Probably Bentley draw this 190 in level flight
- attitude, I'm not sure to say the truth:
-


There is sure alot of positive wing incedence shown.

"I never saw the Me109 with the black heart again. I mention the Me109 with the black heart and "200" written on the tail."
Me109G-14 of Erich Hartmann

http://www.yeowell19.freeserve.co.uk/hartmanncs_1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 08:15 PM
WalterMitty wrote:
- While nobody may be able to model the human element
- in any detail,Ithink my suggestion would help
- compensate for that in a way that does increase
- realism.I also believe that both the very close and
- further back views that we have in the cockpit now
- are less important and seem rather unrealistic the
- way the target appears to change in size.I think the
- toggle up/down look would give us the benefit of
- pilot movement in a limited degree that would just
- add to the many reasons il2 is the best.Pilots did
- shoot without the gunsight on occasions,and I expect
- some were quite skilled.Plus some aircraft would
- still be able to use the gunsight,due to its high
- mount and would open up deflection shots in full
- real for everybody.But if Oleg says its not
- practical,then I say O-Well,thats life.
-
-

I agree With You!! that would be great..and also the chance
with opening canopy--(Which was ina game called Rowans Battle of Britain) About 2 years ago...when you could tilt your head from one side to another to get better view ahead..practical..especially when landing..taxiing..and when oil all over your windscreen!http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 08:25 PM
LLv26_Morko

You seem to be close to losing it like Sami.Will your CO be apologizing for you too in the future?

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 08:26 PM
Thera wrote:
- I don't know about most of you guys but I'd trust an
- engineer's analysis of the issue before I'd trust an
- emotional old Veteran.


Fair enough, but Oleg's not the only engineer in the house. Others of us are also capable of sifting through the technical evidence, and some of us find the explanation wanting. Fact, engineers often disagree when looking at the same information. In several ways Oleg's post illustrates the problem is real rather than refuting it. Pay attention both to what is said and what is not said. Did you see any IL-2 based measurement of the angle over the nose in Oleg's post (as others have done on multiple occasions and by various methods?) Did you see any admission that "refraction is of course not modeled for technical reasons, and that costs 1.x degrees of view." Nope, more like "it's perfect, now let us be." Anyone that understands refraction knows that isn't correct and can do the calculations to prove it. In my own experience, my faith in other engineer's judgement is strengthened when they acknowledge and quantify known errors or simplifications and admit what shortcuts must be made.

Weigh the evidence on both sides, make your own conclusions. We don't all have to come to identical conclusions on this. It is definitely time to move on though. There is no sense in discussing this endlessly. Oleg made up his mind at least 8 months ago, he isn't likely to change it. I'm glad he posted his basis (part of his basis anyway) even if I draw a different conclusion. If the whine-whiners would shut up with the "see this proves it, you LW idiots is wrong" approach it would be most helpful in allowing this dead horse to rest in peace.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 08:26 PM
So, now that Oleg thinks he proved Kurt was an imbicile, how about fixing the La5FN cockpit with too much visibility?

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 08:28 PM
whats that brown stuff on ur lips Buzzu? :O

i let it be, not coming to ur "area of brown stuff"
no hope to get anything better here, lickers are harassing too much.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 08:30 PM
Ok, I change my mind. I now agree with Oleg about the geometry.

Maybe in the next sim things like refraction and ability to move head around more would reduce some of the handicaps associated with having your head in a fixed position.

And it would be great if someone made 3d goggles that actually worked and didn't cut refresh rate in half.

Some day.........

http://www.tamiyausa.com/product/plastic/148aircraftseries/images/61081/header.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 08:35 PM
Guys! I must write it again couse i knew it will sink here. I must do this becouse i wont sleep if dont. I dont have any mails to you so must do it here. I realize smthg that nobody think about. Its so simple that i cant belive nobody noticed it. Firs of all the pilot sit posision (up down) doesnt matter in gunsight view becouse he must look in one line thrugh the revi. If he were taller he must down and if he were smaller he must up his chair. I think 3d model is correct. Only 2 things are messy. Height of pilots head posision and height of cross on revi. I try to explain.

You all guys thought that if we will up his head during gunsight view we will be have better visibility. Wrong. I dont know if what im thinkin of will do a better vis but the more i think of it the more im convinced. Ok to the point. Looking at Olegs pics you can see that if we up pilots head the down bar will be more thick then it is now. So look at game to gunsight and nongunsight view. If you think a little you will notice that when you looking through gunsight pilots head is more up than in nongunsight. If we up more his head we must be up revi too wich is impossible (aromour glass). But if we down his head in gunsight view the bar will be invisible like it is in nongunsight (you see only a little bar). If head movement from nongunsight to gunsight will be only to the front and to right it would be more realistic (if he move a little down even it might be even better). Think of your "nose down". If we move up head then we'll be look from up to revi so guns must shoot down too, wich is absurd. But if we will down head then mg's will be shoot as it should straight foward (with those "nose down"). Only thing to do this is do the same height of gunsight and nongunsight view and put cross on revi little heigher (it will be lower like it is in nongunsight). Or change heads height in gunsight and nongunsight eachother.

Call me crazy that i didnt notice that earlier. Tell me what you think about this, couse i wont be able to sleep before i wont realize im a stupid.

One more thing. I dont know if visibility will be better or even whorse but imo it should be like this (after all photos i saw i did those conclusions, and espessialy after Olegs photos).

If you see my point just tell me if not well im just a human i might be wrong. But pls dont tell "not another one" couse i dont want to hear it. If Oleg think that is stupid i will say "well pity" and nothing more. the end.


Fly fast, stay high, shoot to kill.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 08:35 PM
spets wrote:
- JESUS people, drop it already!
-
- if you move the seat up or down, you'll screw up the
- aiming recticle! so just drop this ***king debate
- over the cockpit and at the very least start whining
- about something else, or at the most leave this
- forum so we could enjoy ourselves!

Spets is right! Just drop it already. Oleg went out of his way to present a solid argument AGAINST changing the view.

As I understood his post, these were his points.

1. The gunsight cannot be raised much higher or it will hit the sloping front window glass.

2. Refraction cannot be modelled in the game. Even if there were such a way, we'd gain AT MOST 1 degree of
extra view over the nose. Is it worth arguing for 1 degree? Well, perhaps, but I'm sick of all the flaming and stupidity on these forums.

Thank you for your detailed and convincing reply, Oleg.
[b]желаю вам хорошее здоровье![b]

--
<font size=-2>A little known fact to most WW2 historians, the Luftwaffe selected only midgets and dwarves to fly the Fw 190. This practice put the little people to good use while also serving the despicable "final solution" of eliminating undesirable persons through combat losses. Thanks to proprietary historical documents (which cannot be revealed to the public) Forgotten Battles is the ONLY flight sim to model this historic detail.</font>

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 08:37 PM
Strafnaya

I guess you think if your not disrespectful, then your a brown nose. Pathetic.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 08:42 PM
Nose down attitude does not mean that it flew to a different direction than the engine pulling it, but only sais how it looked like when a 190 was flying level, with flightdirection parallel to the wings.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/nosedown_attitude_marked.jpg



What I was wondering, were there different variants of cockpit frames in different Fw190 versions?

In the pitcure Oleg posted, the struts look thick, not quite as thick as in gunsight view in the game, but thick.

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/proof_1.jpg



In this picture, the angle and distance is about the same, but the struts look not so wide like in the picture above.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/oleg/fw190_014.jpg



http://www.1c.ru/games/files/mado/PilotView_I.jpg

On the pictures Oleg posted, there is no wooden intermediate strut on top struts visible either.
http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/190-1.jpg



Lets set aside the canopy struts, but consider the famous "bar".

http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/fw190_sightlines_blank.jpg



Which one of these is the officially "real" bar?

http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/fw190_sightlines_bar1.jpg


http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/fw190_sightlines_bar2.jpg


http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/fw190_sightlines_bar3.jpg


http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/fw190_sightlines.jpg



http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/fw190_sightlines_bar_distance2.jpg



However, any of those above must lead to the thingie visible here...

http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/agrab0001.jpg



Maybe interesting which bar is modelled in FB?

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 08:51 PM
Well first thank you Oleg for at least responding properly and showing some of your evidence against our case. I just want to say, i am not blind. As others have said you show the bar from a higher perspective than we get in-game. If you lower the viewing angle to what we actually see in-game that bar could not be as visable. To everyone who thinks we are whining, look at the picture taken from the right side of that FW with the cowling off and no engine (posted above)
You can clearly see from the leather, there is a downwards angle until it reaches the bar. The bar is below the leather and should be below the sight line unless u sat up in the cockpit. Furthermore, even in Oleg's own pictures, the bar is substantial, but i feel he even reproduced it a little too big from his own sources. As a judgement call it was obviously the wrong one. He chose to criple the view on 1 out of the 2 fighters that u can fly as the Luftwaffe. If you are going to Err, Err on the side of the player, not history. Would players have complained about it having a slightly better view than it (according to his sources, not ours) historically should have? Certainly in comparison to all other planes it should have been obvious that the FW has really poor gunsight view. I also agree that this is a dead issue, but damn http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Why won't Oleg just agree to remove a few lines of pixels from the top of the lower frame?? Who would that hurt? The people who want to shoot down FW's? Please, no one would mind and it would make alot of people happy.

But, at the end of the day it is Oleg's sim.

What can we who believe it's wrong do? Nothing!

To all who tried their best to prove the case, I salute you.

4./JG52_Kalo

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 08:56 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- LLv26_Morko
-
- You seem to be close to losing it like Sami.Will
- your CO be apologizing for you too in the future?
-
-
- Da Buzz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- <center>
-
<img
- src="http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberli
- n.jpg">
-

Go suck your mustang..up your --well you know what!!!

Suomennettuna..

Ved√¬§ mustangi hanuriis!!!

--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 08:59 PM
"True Whiners" slogan - " Never Surrender ! "

Now THAT'S a SPIRIT ! WOW !

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

----------------------------------------
My bomb says : Hitler Kaputt !
----------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:00 PM
TheRealMatrix, about the 'wooden' intermediate strut.

Most of the photo's are with the cockpitcanopy pulled backward. If you close it, you see the whole picture, namely first the frame of the movable canopy and behind that the 'wooden' colored thick bar of the static part of the canopy with armored glass.

If you look at the photo's you see that last part ('wooden' colored bar) widening higher up. Just like the widening of the thick 'wooden' bar in the game.

Don't know why it is brownish, perhaps covered with leather in case of crash.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:00 PM
Btw, the height of the pilot's POV is extremely important, just some centimeters can have a big impact, just look at a real Yak-3 cockpit with the very accurate Yak-3 cockpit of FB:

http://www.pbase.com/image/17718731

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:05 PM
In fb..seems like VVS pilots are hight as Basket ball players when lw pilots are like dwarfs from Lord of the rings...
But thats allright be sure....Engineers have thought that way!!!

--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:07 PM
From Oleg's reply and his proof pic

"As you can see the struts are THICK (note: the picture was done from the position a bit higher than the eyes

of the pilot)."

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/proof_1.jpg



We can clearly see the space between the BAR and the PAD on that photo. Base on high school geometry, if POV

(point of view)set higher the farther object(the BAR) would move up, the closer object(the PAD)would move down

and we should be able to see more space between the BAR and the PAD(Oleg proves it in the 3rd pic). Of course

if POV set lower, it is the other way around. And please take a look at the gunsight view of FW190 in FB


http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/fw190cock/07_fw190a4_cockpit.jpg


According to Oleg, the POV of the 1st photo is a bit higher than a pilot do. So we can assume the POV in FB's

cockpit gunsight view is lower than the POV in Oleg's photo. What we see in FB gunsight view should be less

space between the BAR and the PAD(not sure the game draw this space), the BAR move a bit lower and the PAD move

a bit higher. Since the BAR(green line)in Oleg's photo barely touch the Revi, if the POV in FB gunsight view is

lower than the POV in Oleg's photo, we should be able to expect that part of the BAR will be blocked by the PAD

and we should see less or no block on the Revi by the BAR.

However NO!! Instead it is the other way around!! The part of Revi blocked by the BAR is even bigger in FB

gunsight view than Oleg's photo given that the POV in FB gunsight view is set lower. How could it be possible!?


Here is another pic from Oleg who said that if POV of pilot set higher, half of the Revi would be blocked by

the bar.

http://www.1c.ru/games/files/mado/PilotView_II.jpg



Summary
1st Pic(from Oleg)->POV=high->the Bar barely touch the Revi
2nd Pic(from community)->POV=normal->the Bar block ~17% of the Revi
3rd Pic(from Oleg)->POV=high->the Bar block 50% of the Revi


I am not a fan of FW190 nor I care it'll get fix or not. I admire Oleg like alot of people here do but I just

feel it's not fair to those people who spent a lot of time to do research on this issue. Before flaming me,

let's be fair, take a few minutes to think about it first.


P.S. Good luck to your surgery, Oleg!!

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:09 PM
I would like to be able to toggle between those views that Jtd posted showing the target plane in thread No.2.That would simulate a pilot stretching upwards to be able to see more in front.And it could work for all planes. Unless the top of canopy was too low to allow it.They raised the height of the canopy on later FWs btw.And not for nothing.



Message Edited on 06/11/0303:12PM by WalterMitty

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:11 PM
Look at photos. You were trying to ask for that (and upper revi?):
http://acn.waw.pl/jg300/images/obrazki%20do%20strony/proposition2.JPG
But you should ask for that:
http://acn.waw.pl/jg300/images/obrazki%20do%20strony/proposition1.JPG

I didnt change antything on those photos just little head movement becouse of gforce. And tell me that second photo wouldnt satisfy you...Do this head position on gunsight. Thats my point on eariler post. Read it too I give an explanation for what i show here.

Fly fast, stay high, shoot to kill.

Message Edited on 06/11/03‚ 08:15PM by JG300_And

Message Edited on 06/11/03‚ 08:16PM by JG300_And

Message Edited on 06/11/0308:32PM by JG300_And

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:14 PM
Look at the Middle picture from the earlier respond to this forum...real fw-190 pilots said the plane flew nose down attitude..and the picture shows...nose little above horizon and variometer showing decent..whats wrong with this picture?

--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:20 PM
Great idea, second picture would be very good

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:24 PM
Thank you for all your hard work. You have made an amazing game!!!

Get better soon and good luck.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:29 PM
JG300_And wrote:

- I didnt change antything on those photos just little
- head movement becouse of gforce. And tell me that
- second photo wouldnt satisfy you...Do this head
- position on gunsight.

Good point with your second photos.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:36 PM
look you dam idiots the dam aiming level of the fw in fb is great, if you are going to whine about something u better make sure u r right, besides, the only problem i have seen this far with the fw copit is when u are aiming it is fine, u are at the level of the gunsight, but when u are not aiming you are still in the level of the gunsight, pilots in fw would have their head a little bit higer when they are not aiming, that is what i think would compensate a little


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

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:47 PM
Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- look you dam idiots the dam aiming level of the fw
- in fb is great, if you are going to whine about
- something u better make sure u r right, besides, the
- only problem i have seen this far with the fw copit
- is when u are aiming it is fine, u are at the level
- of the gunsight, but when u are not aiming you are
- still in the level of the gunsight, pilots in fw
- would have their head a little bit higer when they
- are not aiming, that is what i think would
- compensate a little
-
-
-
- "Never forget the past so we dont make the same
- mistakes in the future"

How it will compensate ? if your head is on the same level all the time? in fb i mean...and to my knowledge reflection gunsights could be adjusted according to pilots height etc...or did wwII airforces only recruit certain pilots whom had the certain height...

--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:50 PM
USAFHelos wrote:
- I knew this thread would turn into a rant about
- doing something to make up for the lack of
- visibility

Ok, then how about the real life issue that the seat "was adjustable" 10cm ( 4in for you laymen ) up and down from standard position? How about that Helo? Huh?

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:53 PM
You know I looked at the evidence again that Oleg had posted. I read some more of the posts. Looked at other pics that people have posted. Oleg is wrong about this.

Oleg is wrong

Go ahead and bash me and many others, but even with his own evidence, he is wrong. He shows you pictures taken from a higher POV than in game that match the cockpit lower bar. So if you bring the POV down to the level in the game, surely the visable are of the bar will grow smaller as the angle changes. It is SUPER CLEAR.

Even the people who say stop whining should say "stop whining, but you are right"

KALO

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:54 PM
Yep eagle. Iam sure everybody is satisfied by Olegs proof that the Cockpit is indeed correct. Ok there might be few who still talk about the metal bar but atleast they have nice ideas and its worth reading.

I find myself flying with non aiming view all the time in FW190 only when I have enemy perfectly in sight I hit shift-F1 to aim.

I agree with eagle, the pilots head should be little higher and when shift-f1 is pressed it would get lower to the aiming view we have now.

No trolling just opinion of myn.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:55 PM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif :
Jimminy Christmas!!!! You guys are still at it!!??!?
It's OVER!!!! You got your award now go home!!!! Go shoot somebody down to vent!!! LOL..... I left this thread this morning and it is still up there..... What do you want an award for beating the ghost of the dead horse??? ROFL......

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif I guess if that Pony is not up to snuff I will have a lot of crow to eat or keep my mouth shut huh??
Naaaaaaahhhhhh/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


&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

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:56 PM
I've enjoyed kicking back and reading all this stuff - and the one thing I find interesting is that out of all the people that purchased this game, there are but a small handful that complain about the 190 in these forums. It's always the same people day in and day out.

And no matter what data is presented, screenshots, etc.. the same group continue to complain.

This small group posts so much - they can't even keep it contained in one thread!!!! So there are like 5 fw190 threads all discussing the same topic with the same people!


I'm curious how many copies of FB were sold - and then let's say 10 of those are complaining. What percentage are complaining?

Meanwhile, to someone not as familiar with the game, they come here and just see this continual banter!!!

This topic has become as relevant as the RJB trim slider posts - and are beginning to take on the same value...

Oleg - thanks for the information. Great stuff!

Now...let's get that patch out! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hope your surgery goes well.

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
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
06-11-2003, 09:56 PM
The real Yak-3 cockpit has a slightly different shape. Maybe it's a later or earlier version than the FB one?

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

<table border="0" width="100%"><tr><td width="50%"><font size=2><font size="-1">Come and see the brilliant light
don't let your emotions mask your sight
it's the manifestation of a deeper fight
that affects me and you
my optimism was running high
a new world order was on my mind
but I couldn't believe it when I heard them say
they're blowing it away

and the fertile cresent is burning today
and baby my emotions are too
the cradle of humanity has led us all astray
and we're all in this together don't you know
‚¬īcause our species has nowhere else to go </font></font></td><td width="50%"><font size=2><font size="-1">Aggression rears it's ugly head
retaliation brings further dread
the two are linked by unseen threads
that wind back through time
I don't agree with this outdated trend
nationalism is an evil friend
but hatred is instilled by invisible lines
drawn in our minds

and the fertile cresent is haunting us today
and baby our instincts are too
the ghost of humanity is warning us this way
and i think we all should heed it don't you know
‚¬īcause we've got nowhere else to go </font></font></td></tr></table>

"Fertile Cresent" by Bad Religion

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:56 PM
kalo456 wrote:
- You know I looked at the evidence again that Oleg
- had posted. I read some more of the posts. Looked at
- other pics that people have posted. Oleg is wrong
- about this.
-
- Oleg is wrong
-
- Go ahead and bash me and many others, but even with
- his own evidence, he is wrong. He shows you pictures
- taken from a higher POV than in game that match the
- cockpit lower bar. So if you bring the POV down to
- the level in the game, surely the visable are of the
- bar will grow smaller as the angle changes. It is
- SUPER CLEAR.
-
- Even the people who say stop whining should say
- "stop whining, but you are right"
-
- KALO
-
-

Right Said Kalo!!!!

--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 09:58 PM
AaronGT wrote:
- Pictures say a 1000 words!
-
-
If pictures say a 1000 words what about the dozens of real pictures before Olegs that show a completely different view and they were also in real FW-190's?

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 10:05 PM
No seriously brownie brigade, oops did i say that...

If you check the pictures in the new thread and think about it. It makes little sense doesnt it?

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

There really are many threads around, the same thing was here allrdy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Message Edited on 06/11/0311:25PM by alarmer

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 10:16 PM
All the cross posting and diverging arguments: 3 as far as I can tell, 1)nose down flight 2) head position (still!) 3) ahh crap now I forgot the 3rd. I'm getting a headache, I don't even know which thread this is any more.

But for BakuBaku, I think the 'effect' you are describing as incorrect is actually Refraction (in the real life photos) of the 60mm armour glass. This gives the 'illusion' that the bar appears 'lower'. It has already been stated that refraction cannot (/will not) be modeled within the limits of Il2 (in fact I don't think we want it personally, imagine as enemy passes from armor glass to regular glass).

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 10:22 PM
Recon_609IAP wrote:
- I've enjoyed kicking back and reading all this stuff
- - and the one thing I find interesting is that out
- of all the people that purchased this game, there
- are but a small handful that complain about the 190
- in these forums. It's always the same people day in
- and day out.

Ive seen People Complain more about p-47,p-40 etc..?? Or dont you see that?
-
- And no matter what data is presented, screenshots,
- etc.. the same group continue to complain.
-
yada yada yada...

- This small group posts so much - they can't even
- keep it contained in one thread!!!! So there are
- like 5 fw190 threads all discussing the same topic
- with the same people!
-
as for you yanks for p-47,p-40 etc...

- I'm curious how many copies of FB were sold - and
- then let's say 10 of those are complaining. What
- percentage are complaining?
-
Usually yank percentage...for example.. why p-40:s dont have afterburner or radar...and p-47 doesnt go mach 1
...why doesnt other planes fall down by themselves when P-51 is in the area?? yaiks...

- Meanwhile, to someone not as familiar with the game,
- they come here and just see this continual banter!!!
-
- This topic has become as relevant as the RJB trim
- slider posts - and are beginning to take on the same
- value...
yeps! i agree!

- Oleg - thanks for the information. Great stuff!
Information isnt same as patch....
-
- Now...let's get that patch out! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Hopefully ...
-
- Hope your surgery goes well.
For that.. I agree!
-
- S!
- 609IAP_Recon
-
- Forgotten Wars Virtual War
- Forum: <a
- href="http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php"
- target=_blank>http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/i
- ndex.php</a>
- Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
- Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP
-
<img
- src="http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jp
- g">
-
- Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis.
- Dona nobis pacem
-
-
-



--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 10:34 PM
So many pictures from so many positions...

What they show true is that refraction of the glass makes the difference spoken of.

Not head height.

Thickness of frames changes with how close they are to the eye or camera.

........................

It should be simple to understand that models made from blueprints have the guns aimed at the correct angle, with some adjustment for convergence range to handle ballistic drop. That alone is proof of nose angle of any plane in flight, pitched down an extra 4 degrees would have the guns firing low.

With the guns angle right, the sight view must cross the bullet path.

How much can a Revi be raised when it has been pointed out that the windshield tilted back so far is in the way?

The difference between photos and 3D model is refraction of the glass and the photos mostly not taken from gunsight view or even front-back head/eye position.

We will NOT get refraction and neither will we get the model changed to adjust for refraction with the bar lower but the top also lower/looking even thicker also due to refraction.

We will NOT get freedom of head movement for whatever reasons there are, probably it is unworkable with some other aspect of the sim like making the tracks we all love.

Please stop yer whining. Especially the baseless and/or exaggerated crying. Grow up and accept what you have been shown, the man has good reasons for doing as he has in managing the production of this sim.

That said, I would like to see the non-Revi-aiming view to be from a higher point but not so high as in Olegs render of from way high, it would spoil looking up with the eye so close to the top bar it would block too much angle.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 10:39 PM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- So many pictures from so many positions...


Very good post mate!

S!



<center><font face="verdana" size="1">One of the Four Horsemen


Message Edited on 06/11/0309:39PM by Venum-

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 10:41 PM
I agree Max.. The non aiming view could act as a compromise here.

One thing I dont understand about oleg is he bashing the Nose Down attitude so much. I think this man has bit more experience.

"The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, was somewhat better than that of the Spitfire owing to the nose-down attitude of the FW 190 in flight"

- Captain Eric Brown

Now we just need the spitfire /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 10:51 PM
LLv26_Morko wrote:
-
- Ive seen People Complain more about p-47,p-40
- etc..?? Or dont you see that?

While it is true the P-47&P-40 thing got intense but it reached no where near the intensity of this thing. Come to think of it ...where's the Sound of Reason? This thing went ON and ON and ON again and again and again........./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

- as for you yanks for p-47,p-40 etc...

Hey bub....we are waiting for the patch and hopefully our *-** so we can really give you something to grumble about. We know we dont have to try to browbeat Oleg into making the obvious improvements...that he saw after our very convincing arguments (Thanks Sky Chimp etc)...unlike your.... uh...cause celeb.

- Usually yank percentage...for example.. why p-40:s
- dont have afterburner or radar...and p-47 doesnt go
- mach 1

Nope....we just dont want the P-40 to explode randomly in the middle of spanking on some..... other plane.. Actually the P-40 as modeled DOES have an after burner..unfortunately it is the plane itself.. and radar?? I wont go there. (I am opting for diplomacy here) and we dont want the Jug to roll like a B-17

- ...why doesnt other planes fall down by themselves
- when P-51 is in the area?? yaiks...

Well..... I wasnt gonna bring it up but....well..let's just wait and see about the P-51 eh? Since the AI is good in FB but a real live pilot flying iot is a whoile different ball of wax.

&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

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 10:59 PM
Yeah right... go bite Hershey bar..or something...
or throw a cartwheel.. i dont care...

you gyus are just as stupid as you seem like...
oh..we dont whine..others do...
we just want things to be fixed..(P47 with afterburner)
And if somebody complains about 190..theyre wrong..

we ,we ,we ..we are right...cause were americans...
others are wrong and whiners...

Im really afraid cause you people have the neutron bomb
and an iq of an Gorilla...
Lord help us...

And for all morons who dont realize ,,,this is my view,,not LLv26:s view

--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

Message Edited on 06/11/03‚ 04:06PM by LLv26_Morko

Message Edited on 06/11/0304:09PM by LLv26_Morko

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 11:03 PM
TheRealMatrix wrote:

"Nose down attitude does not mean that it flew to a different direction than the engine pulling it, but only sais how it looked like when a 190 was flying level, with flightdirection parallel to the wings."

http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/nosedown_attitude_marked.jpg


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

Yes, this is apparent to anyone with any common sense, experience or education in the matter.

Notice the plane of the wing does not follow the bottom of the fuselage.

It is a result of the aircrafts center of gravity, and design. The farther back the designers place the center of gravity the more incidence of stall, and lack of visibility. For this reason and due to the natural nose heavyness of a nose mounted engine mount, this aircraft was designed to fly nose heavy. In other words in every maneuver the nose has the tendency to point towards the ground. This means trim or control pressure was necessary to hold level flight.

That means, if one flies hands off the wings follow a higher pitch angle than what one would gather from looking at the fuselage flat on the ground. The seats were generally designed to reflect this wing attitude. Hence one gets the impression when sitting on the ground in these planes he is tilted slightly up out of the cockpit compared to the fuselage position. As the guns followed the plane of the wings and eyes of the pilot not the fuselage or engine.

I think some here are confusing a very simple design element of WW2 fighter planes.

An easy example that all are familiar with is the P-51 Mustang. When its rear fuel tank was full, it shifted its center of gravity rearward, beyond its optimal design, which resulted in a nose up tendancy which caused a severe tendancy for stall and flat spin. No one in their right mind would design a WW2 fighter with this characteristic unless for increased range etc...it was absolutely necessary.

Here you can also see that this is the case with the 109 if you will look very carefully at the angle of the fuselage, compared to that of the wings compared to the position of the pilot. The nose of the aircraft is not up in his face, it drops down and away. For shorter pilots, a good view over the dash was a simple as a pillow placed under their backsides.

http://www.yeowell19.freeserve.co.uk/hartmanncs_1.jpg







Message Edited on 06/11/0306:18PM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 11:15 PM
Funny! Morko.Even if I'm U.S.



Message Edited on 06/11/0305:17PM by WalterMitty

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 11:18 PM
@ZG77_Lignite

It has nothing to do with refraction because I am comparing the green line Oleg drew. That green line
doesn't has any refraction effect as one can tell!!


Infact there is only one possible way that the BAR appear to be bigger and block more portion of the Revi for the FB
Gunsight view than the 1st pic as the pic shown.


The POV must be higher in FB.


But both F1(cockpit)view or Shift F1(Gunsight)'s POV must be lower than the POV on 1st pic as Oleg said:

"As you can see the struts are THICK (note: the 1st picture was done from the position a bit higher than the eyes of the pilot)."


He contradict himself, right?


Moreover, since POV is set lower than the POV on the 1st pic from Oleg, there should be less portion of Revi being blocked by the BAR than the 1st pic(realistic one). But what do we have? Ironically it increases to 15%~17% portion of the Revi being blocked by the BAR.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 11:22 PM
LLv26_Morko wrote:
- Yeah right... go bite Herhshey bar..or something...
- or throw a cartwheel.. i dont care...
-
- you gyus are just as stupid as you seem like...
- oh..we dont whine..others do...
- we just want things to be fixed..(P47 with
- afterburner)
- And if somebody complains about 190..theyre wrong..
-
- we ,we ,we ..we are right...cause were americans...
- others are wrong and whiners...
-
- Im really afraid cause you people have the neutron
- bomb
- and an iq of an Gorilla...
- Lord help us...
-
- And for all morons who dont realize ,,,this is my
- view,,not LLv26:s view
-
-
---That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--
-
- Message Edited on 06/11/03‚ 04:06PM by
- LLv26_Morko


I have avoided this disaster of a post as I don't fly the 190 and can add nothing reasonable to the argument. But I have been keeping tabs on it, and one thing that is really irritating me is your absolute hatred for "Yanks". I am sick and tired of reading post after post of your ranting and then equating us "Yanks" as being worse. Ha! Do not equate us to you as we are way above you, we are not obvious bigots who can only attack other people's nationality and heritage. I don't care if your views are yours, your squad, your country or your mom's. They do not belong here, and you are giving all of the above mentioned a bad name. You make yourself and the people you represent look foolish with your remarks. You may or may not have a point about the view in the 190, I do not know and I cannot say. But your view is lost in your contemptious behavior and therefore moot. If you are wanting to make enemies for yourself and your squad well congratulations you are doing a bang-up job! I can assure you alot of us "Gorilla IQ'd" "Idiot" "Yanks" will be gunning for you. I think it would be in your best interest to apologize to everyone you have insulted including Oleg, and not have your CO do it. You owe everyone here a huge apology, especially us "Yanks". Then perhaps people will actually take your argument on the 190 to be a valid point.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)

<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/CindyII.jpg> </center>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilart/361FGsmall.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 = "#F0CE41";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#E0C550";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#E0C550";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 11:26 PM
Eagle_361st wrote:
-
- LLv26_Morko wrote:
-- Yeah right... go bite Herhshey bar..or something...
-- or throw a cartwheel.. i dont care...
--
-- you gyus are just as stupid as you seem like...
-- oh..we dont whine..others do...
-- we just want things to be fixed..(P47 with
-- afterburner)
-- And if somebody complains about 190..theyre wrong..
--
-- we ,we ,we ..we are right...cause were americans...
-- others are wrong and whiners...
--
-- Im really afraid cause you people have the neutron
-- bomb
-- and an iq of an Gorilla...
-- Lord help us...
--
-- And for all morons who dont realize ,,,this is my
-- view,,not LLv26:s view
--
--
----That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--
--
-- Message Edited on 06/11/03‚ 04:06PM by
-- LLv26_Morko
-
-
- I have avoided this disaster of a post as I don't
- fly the 190 and can add nothing reasonable to the
- argument. But I have been keeping tabs on it, and
- one thing that is really irritating me is your
- absolute hatred for "Yanks". I am sick and tired of
- reading post after post of your ranting and then
- equating us "Yanks" as being worse. Ha! Do not
- equate us to you as we are way above you, we are not
- obvious bigots who can only attack other people's
- nationality and heritage. I don't care if your views
- are yours, your squad, your country or your mom's.
- They do not belong here, and you are giving all of
- the above mentioned a bad name. You make yourself
- and the people you represent look foolish with your
- remarks. You may or may not have a point about the
- view in the 190, I do not know and I cannot say. But
- your view is lost in your contemptious behavior and
- therefore moot. If you are wanting to make enemies
- for yourself and your squad well congratulations you
- are doing a bang-up job! I can assure you alot of us
- "Gorilla IQ'd" "Idiot" "Yanks" will be gunning for
- you. I think it would be in your best interest to
- apologize to everyone you have insulted including
- Oleg, and not have your CO do it. You owe everyone
- here a huge apology, especially us "Yanks". Then
- perhaps people will actually take your argument on
- the 190 to be a valid point.
- ~S!
- Eagle
- CO 361st vFG
-
- <center>------------------------------------------
- ----------------------------------</center> <center>
- www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
-
- <center> <img
- src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/C
- indyII.jpg> </center>
-
- &lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var
- doc=window[pn];};var
- YourPicName='http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilar
- t/361FGsmall.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 =
- "#F0CE41";a[a.length-3].bgColor =
- "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor =
- "#E0C550";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User
- Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor =
- "#E0C550";a[a.length-8].bgColor =
- "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor =
- "#000000";}</script>
-
-
-

Well That says it all..
And for the record..i fly on the lobby under the same nick as here so ..Welcome to try Gun me down!

--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

Message Edited on 06/11/0304:33PM by LLv26_Morko

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 11:27 PM
Eagle_361st wrote:

"I have avoided this disaster of a post as I don't fly the 190 and can add nothing reasonable to the argument. But I have been keeping tabs on it, and one thing that is really irritating me is your absolute hatred for "Yanks". I am sick and tired of reading post after post of your ranting and then equating us "Yanks" as being worse. Ha! Do not equate us to you as we are way above you, we are not obvious bigots who can only attack other people's nationality and heritage. I don't care if your views are yours, your squad, your country or your mom's. They do not belong here, and you are giving all of the above mentioned a bad name. You make yourself and the people you represent look foolish with your remarks. You may or may not have a point about the view in the 190, I do not know and I cannot say. But your view is lost in your contemptious behavior and therefore moot. If you are wanting to make enemies for yourself and your squad well congratulations you are doing a bang-up job! I can assure you alot of us "Gorilla IQ'd" "Idiot" "Yanks" will be gunning for you. I think it would be in your best interest to apologize to everyone you have insulted including Oleg, and not have your CO do it. You owe everyone here a huge apology, especially us "Yanks". Then perhaps people will actually take your argument on the 190 to be a valid point.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG"

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


I'm an American, and I haven't been insulted.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 11:35 PM
Read above James I copied his last post into mine at the top. It's right there, read his other posts before that, they are all there. It's not a matter of hurt feelings, more of principal. His point is lost in the constant bashing. I personally don't care about it, but I do care about the bad name he tries to make for Americans.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)

<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/CindyII.jpg> </center>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilart/361FGsmall.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 = "#F0CE41";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#E0C550";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#E0C550";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 11:35 PM
double post nt /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Message Edited on 06/11/0310:41PM by JG300_And

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 11:39 PM
James (not only you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) look what will happen if we move up pilots head. If we doesnt move the revi (wich is impossible) the aiming point will be lower (guns should be shoot down then). What we need (according to nose down) is move pilots head little down, so he can be shoot straight. On pic: solid line if we move head up and look through the revi (i overdraw this intentialy). Point line the look as it should be. Look at my eariler post with pics. Only 2 people noticed it. Are you blind guys? I wrote post earilier too, nobody noticed it. Are you reading this forum or just skip from one insult to another? One more thing. On every bluprint pilots head is on (how to call that?damn my english...) head support (i hope you will know what im trying to say lol), but on every photo he has his head moved to the front. Now guys what you would do to have stability during fighting? Put your head to your seat? If then your head will be stable and moving with plane? Yes? Or just have your head freely and during 3g in turn loose cross from the sight? At my previous pic: no bar visible, all revi visible, all troubles resolved http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
http://acn.waw.pl/jg300/images/obrazki%20do%20strony/pic.jpg

Fly fast, stay high, shoot to kill.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 11:45 PM
JG300_And wrote:
- But you should ask for that:
- http://acn.waw.pl/jg300/images/obrazki%20do%20strony/proposition1.JPG

Bad solution. The bar is hidden behind the leather and the crosshair is on the lower edge of the reflector glass, giving a worse sight.

I think the main problem is refraction. This would draw the bar thinner, and you could use the complete Revi. That's it.

Another point is that we can't move our heads inside the cockpit. We could do something like this:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/cockpit/aha5-2.jpg


See the crosshair went to the upper edge?? Yep, but also better downward visibility. A pilot just could get this view by putting his head back in the neck which rises his eyes - if there's no more space above his head.

We jst need a higher normal view. Oleg's one is too much high for this. We couldn't use Revi in that one though - like in 262. You lean forward and a bit DOWN while closing your left eye then by pressing shift F1. I think that's what pilots did. But if you look straight through the Revi, FB is right - that doesn't mean, higher positions are wrong.


<hr>

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

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

&lt;script>var specwin=window;function openspecs(){specwin=window.open("http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/specs.htm", "specs", "hotkeys=0,width=640,height=480,left=64,top=64,scro llbars=yes");}</script>Die olle Rechenkiste vom noch olleren Willey (java_script: openspecs[))

<font face="Comic Sans MS" size="2">Seit &lt;script>var eventdate=new Date("March 20, 2003 00:00:00 GMT");d=new Date();count=Math.floor((eventdate.getTime()-d.getTime())/1000);count=Math.floor(count/(60*60*-24));document.write(count);</script> Tagen<sup>*</sup> gibts Il-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
BTW: In &lt;script>var eventdate=new Date("June 14, 2003 00:00:00 GMT");d=new Date();count=Math.floor((eventdate.getTime()-d.getTime())/1000);count=Math.floor(count/(60*60*24));document.write(count);</script> Tag(en) gibt's das n√¬§chste Development Update von Oleg Maddox, wenn alles schiefl√¬§uft /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<font size="1"><sup>*</sup> In Europa . In den USA gabs FB schon 16 Tage vorher am 4.3. Link (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zkyee)</font></font></p>&lt;script>c0="#000000";c1="#400000";c2="#000040";c3="#000050";c4="#000060";c5="#000070";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-3].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-4].bgColor=c2;if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor=c3;a[a.length-6].bgColor=c0;a[a.length-7].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-8].bgColor=c4;a[a.length-9].bgColor=c5;}else{a[a.length-5].bgColor=c0;a[a.length-6].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-7].bgColor=c4;a[a.length-8].bgColor=c5;};image="http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/bar1.jpg";oa=a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundImage="url("+image+")";oa.backgroundPosition="left center";oa.backgroundRepeat="no-repeat";var a=document.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="http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/transparent36.gif";o.height=36;o.width=36;a=document.all.tags["td");for[i=0;i<a.length;i++)if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf["Willey")!=-1)ii=i;a[ii+2].innerHTML="Focke-Wulf Testpilot";</script><font color=000040>

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 11:49 PM
Oleg Maddox wrote:
As you can see the struts are THICK (note: the picture was done from the position a bit higher than the eyes of the pilot).

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/proof_1.jpg

Oleg Maddox wrote:
The first pic is the default viewing position which is currently present in the game.

http://www.1c.ru/games/files/mado/PilotView_I.jpg

Just wondering something here.. look at these two pictures, as Oleg said the first one is a bit higher than the pilots POV, yet if I look at the second screenshot(which is taken from the pilots POV)the bar is about as big if not bigger than in the first picture. It should be smaller if not invisible from the pilots POV.

If you don't know what I'm talking about here's what I mean:

http://www.1c.ru/games/files/mado/PilotView_II.jpg

In this screenshot the view was raised, now look at the size of the bar. Bigger huh(duh?)?
The first picture was taken from another(higher) view yet the size of the bar is similair if not bigger in the pilots POV screenshot.
If you ask me the POV from the first picture and the third picture is quite similair(screenshot beeing a bit higher imho), the photo is looking down while on the screenshot the view is straight ahead,which makes it harder to tell but just look at the differences between the bar on both pictures.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 11:52 PM
In my opinion FB is the best sim yet.Of course there is very interresting features in many other sims too.

Im convinced that the geometry of the cockpits in FB is the most accurate today.
The problem is not the "Cockpit", its "visibility".



I have been teaching art for many years now, and studying
visual perception issues even longer.In short :
what do you see, how and why?


1-The lack of peripherical vision has been discussed.Its one of the most acute things,hampering situational awereness.This vision is designed to detect movment and add info of the surrounding world.(goes for all animals.some even rely mostly on the peripherical vision)
In combination with the lack of 2eyed vision and imobility(cant lean or move body or head)
this is a lethal formula and is very scaring and cause of irritation for those who are "ill", "elderly", or "simmers"
(intelligence seldom conquers emotion).

2-"How do we solve this problem without changing cockpit-geometry"? = how many suggestions can we(simmers)make with
these few rules? = how to optimise vision?

Making bars semitransparent or semitransparent only on edges of the bars? "or transparent only to planes ,not environment"? able to see plane or shadow/colour trough bar?(examples only)(is it better than no ckpitview?)

Variate the theme like a musician or scientist.Then extract
the parts with validity.

"WHAT" are you going to do? "HOW"? and "WHY"?

Perhaps make ideas clearer with pictures.?

Can we (simmers) gather ideas and present it to Oleg as a paper?

I guess that extracting the valid info even in a forum is
much work and difficult.


Hope i dont sound like a big bladder going on like this.
Thanks for reading!

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 11:53 PM
I dont know how many pictures etc must people draw to make some people believe the nose down style.

Little raising in head position and i will bet my 2 euros that you could see the nose of FW190.

I dont care anymore about the FB modelling since Oleg aint going to change it , i think that much is obvious.

But if the guru of all plane testing Eric Brown says that FW was nose-down in FLIGHT then I believe the man. I doubt oleg has flown FW190 has he?

The same man Eric Brown said that FW190 sighting view was somewhat better than spitfires thats one that makes me wonder. And believe me, when spit becomes modelled and if it has better sight view than FW190 .. Hell is going to brake lose, because that would be unacceptable.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2003, 11:56 PM
No Willey you missed my point. What im trying to say is that the wrong thing in hole case is the crosshair is in bad position! If you put your head lower and up the crosshair you will be looking straight and guns will be shooting straight too. This is one thing wich developers could miss. Did they looking through working revi? Becouse only in that way we can say from what possision pilot could shoot. And im just wondering if that crosshair on reflector glass wasnt adjustable? but i just wonder couse i dont know if it was. Think guys, it have make sense with all nose down theory.

Fly fast, stay high, shoot to kill.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 12:00 AM
alarmer wrote:
- I dont know how many pictures etc must people draw
- to make some people believe the nose down style.
-
- Little raising in head position and i will bet my 2
- euros that you could see the nose of FW190.
-
- I dont care anymore about the FB modelling since
- Oleg aint going to change it , i think that much is
- obvious.
-
- But if the guru of all plane testing Eric Brown says
- that FW was nose-down in FLIGHT then I believe the
- man. I doubt oleg has flown FW190 has he?
-
- The same man Eric Brown said that FW190 sighting
- view was somewhat better than spitfires thats one
- that makes me wonder. And believe me, when spit
- becomes modelled and if it has better sight view
- than FW190 .. Hell is going to brake lose, because
- that would be unacceptable.
-
-

Oleg Seems to know better...thats just the way it is...
everybody else is wrong and he is right..
me for example,,i know myself that me-109:s cockpit isnt modelled right in fb because ive sat in real 109 g6.
Well at least i know that fo sure..but still oleg knows better!


--That Little flash you see in the corner of your eye...is me and my Brewster--

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 12:01 AM
Ok so theres pictures of it with the bar there and without and many great pictures showing it. Anyone think that the bar might have been there on the early a4-5 then removed on the later models to the f9??

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter


&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];}</script>
&lt;script>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='http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/Leadsk1.gif'</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 12:05 AM
Some facts, which will help to enlighten the subject: Human vision (in stereoscopic view i.e. with both eyes) can grasp field of 200 degrees horizontaly and 135 degrees verticaly. What is the difference in FOV and the picture rendered in 3DS can be viewd here http://cts.rice.edu/~shisha/projects/ravl/3ds/editor/cameras/fov.html
Another factor important for understanding view through the reticle is height of the pilot. When I was fling in Air Force, I was barely taken in, since my seating height (distance from my bottom and eyes when seated) was 1 m, the biggest value alowed. More than 1 m would cause too distorted view I would have through the reticle (btw- it was the same used in Mustang) i.e. I would shoot too low.

the only test, proving either Oleg right or wrong would be, to make a screenshot of view in game, Oleg would have to tell exact proportions of his FW-190 cockpits and somebody would have to make a 1:1 model of Oleg's cockpit. A person with proper height (average height of LW FW-190 pilot) should take a seat in that model. An enlarged screenshot (with measures calculated from data above) should be supraimposed to that same person still seating in the cockpit model.

I have a feeling what the results would be.

There is another very important issue everybody here is missing: focus. Everybody who is flying, knows about this. When looking outside, pilot focuses into infinity, but looking down in cockpit he has to re-focus, because at least 75 cm of viewing distance is needed to see things clearly with focus set to umlimited. If Oleg wanted to make cockpit view fully realistic, the instruments should be blured and a quick shift of focus (which human eye is capable of) enables pilot to get a general idea about the values on the instrument BUT NOT A CLEAR VISION OF IT! So, quickly glancing the instruments, pilot can only see where the needles are pointing and using his experience he judges what the actual value is. This is one of main causes why Russian cockpit designers (and not only them) are against digital instruments (showing values with numbers, not dials).


Even slight change of FOV drasticaly changes the actual picture pilot sees. I think, that Oleg has managed to capture this pretty well.

My point is, that it is impossible to recreate the actual view a pilot has or had in his aircraft on computer screen. Flying and shooting in FW-190 is a challenge. Get used to it.
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Oleg's team has recreated the cockpits in 3DS, using very precise data. What you see on the screen is artificial representation of that FOV, with all the limitations.



http://www.x-plane.org/users/dali/skins/glavna.htm

http://www.x-plane.org/users/dali/aviationphotos/main.htm

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 12:05 AM
C‚¬īmoon, allied wont the war and they need everything to do it again virtually. No matter about realism or combaring to other planes cockpit. nothing to do with that at all cant u see it.?? germans lost the war so their gear were so lousy, no other explnation for that, we can bash germany with all our fury cos germany lost the war and winners tells where the desk stays

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 12:42 AM
---This (*change of focus*) is one of main causes why
---Russian cockpit designers (and not only them) are
---against digital instruments (showing values with
---numbers, not dials).

dali, wow! I didn't know that. Thanks!!

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

So...what is it?

Bar hides Revi?
Revi mounted too low?
Seat mounted too low?
Fw-190 flies tail up?
Revi glass Refraction?
Fw-190 seat too far back?
Real Fw-190 pilots sit on parachute?

Wait. Forget that last one. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/Fw%20Chute.jpg

Thanks USAF~Helos.

EDIT:: Fw-190 joke removed (temporarily) because I too can be frustrated by the canopy struts in Fw-190, and also my MiG~3 and Il~2 canopy frames too...but I think they were that THICK and I just must learn to live with them.

I just wish WW2 history gave the German simmers more of a choice of fighters, although in real life they were limited to the 109 and 190.


Message Edited on 06/12/0312:05AM by LEXX_Luthor

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 01:33 AM
Oleg,

Thank you for taking the time to adress this issue and no matter what the outcome is going to be, I wish you good health and a positive outcome of your medical treatment.

I will react to this with just this one post, because I do not want to let this issue get in the way of more important things that are facing you these days:

Personally I do not think we really need a different geometry in the FW190A/F cockpits. I also do not think we need a higher point of view inside these cockpits. The only thing I find somewhat straying from reality in these cockpits is the height of the strut behind the Revi.

In this FW190A-3 cockpit photograph I do not see it, only a small rim:


http://home.wanadoo.nl/wana.mail1/Op****/UltimateFW190pit.jpg


And in this FW190A-8 type of cockpit I do not see it either, again, I only see a small rim. I think this photograph is especially interesting because one can see right through the windshield of the cockpit and you can clearly see the top edge of the instrument panel with the small upstanding rim on top of it.


http://home.wanadoo.nl/wana.mail1/Op****/Fw_Forward_ViewL.jpg


And if I compare the size of the rim on those photographs with the size of the same thing as modelled in the FW190A/F cockpits in FB:



http://home.wanadoo.nl/wana.mail1/Op****/Strut.jpg


I still see a not insignificant discrepancy here, with all due respect. But I must say I am happy (happier) with the view from the Ta-152 cockpit as it is going to be modelled and I also think there are more serious issues regarding the FW190 performance in FB as it is now, like the elevator authority at higher speeds, per example. And so I am hoping that these other issues will get adressed in the upcoming patch, since the view from the cockpit never has stopped me from flying the 190, whereas these other issues I just mentioned, did.

And now I do not want to distract you any further from the more important matters that have come to call upon you recently and I will conclude by saying: good health and many more succesful projects to you and your team, Oleg!

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://home.wanadoo.nl/wana.mail1/Op****/Me262White.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;o.height=142;o.width=160</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 01:41 AM
The way its implemented now the view is higher in shift/F1 in the 190.

The 109 is level in non-shift and shifted modes.The 190 view goes up in shift/F1 view and thats why the bar obscures the revi.The view in ME262 is weird since the shift/F1 view is way below the non shift view.

If we get the raised view as so many here have wanted we see what troubles thatll bring as Oleg has showed us.The bar restricts even more.Now if the view stays the same height as non-shift view then the bar doesnt obstruct.BUT then the gunsight is way low in revi.

Now here is why I suppose Oleg wont change the cockpit view.Its in tune with the bullets flying straight and level from front of plane.If oleg where to match the crosshair to be centered in revi when view is lower then the bullets would have to be made to shoot upwards and would not really be better.Comprende??

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 02:34 AM
Eagle_361st wrote:

"Read above James I copied his last post into mine at the top. It's right there, read his other posts before that, they are all there. It's not a matter of hurt feelings, more of principal. His point is lost in the constant bashing. I personally don't care about it, but I do care about the bad name he tries to make for Americans.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG"

----------

No problem Eagle.

I think the guy was responding to someone who deserved it.

Message Edited on 06/11/0310:01PM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 02:49 AM
dali wrote:

"My point is, that it is impossible to recreate the actual view a pilot has or had in his aircraft on computer screen. Flying and shooting in FW-190 is a challenge. Get used to it."

----------

This is exactly the point. If it is impossible to recreate the actual view that a pilot has or had in his aircraft, why model the cockpits to such an extreme. This harms realism rather than adding to it.

It only adds to it if one only bought IL-2/FB to look at somewhat realistic and pretty pictures. From a practical standpoint, due to this modeling the gunnery and visibility is much more difficult and less instinctive than reality.

After all this is supposedly a combat simulator, not only a simulator. And this is what some of us mean by balance. Certain aspects are overmodeled, and some are not modeled at all.

No doubt sim design with current technology is a compromise. But this begs the question. Is one only looking for a realistic looking sim, they might as well download a few pictures.

Or is one looking for a sim that recreates to the highest degree possible the realistic motor and visual skills of actual WW2 pilots engaged in combat. In this regard IL-2/FB is lacking in many ways.

And in this regard, to achieve this requires not just another patch but a philosophical change of not only the modeling in the sim, but from the developer himself.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 02:58 AM
LLv26_Morko wrote:
- Yeah right... go bite Hershey bar..or something...
- or throw a cartwheel.. i dont care...
- you gyus are just as stupid as you seem like...
- oh..we dont whine..others do...
- we just want things to be fixed..(P47 with
- afterburner)
- And if somebody complains about 190..theyre wrong..
- we ,we ,we ..we are right...cause were americans...
- others are wrong and whiners...
- Im really afraid cause you people have the neutron
- bomb
- and an iq of an Gorilla...
- Lord help us...
- And for all morons who dont realize ,,,this is my
- view,,not LLv26:s view

Control yourself...sure you have a headache...you're tense...irritable....but dont take it out on him.......
YOU NEED ANACIN!!! ANACIN WITH IT"S FAST PAIN RELIEF!!!
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Of course we whine my friend!!! Whining is one of the most common human traits shared by us all. You ever notice how you can always tell when a baby is taking a dump...no matter what country you are in....city, country, jungle...you can always tell. We are all the same. Dont you whine? Would you like some cheese with that whine? Wessleydale perhaps?
Lighten up my man..lighten up....find something to laugh about....watch a sunrise.....eat some choclate....you are just too wound up about all this and I refuse to go there with you. Everybody knows that P-47s didnt come with afterburners...../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif You know good and well you guys didnt just complain about the 190....you folks were OBSESSED about it. Like...like ...James T. Kirk over the Enterprise...."My PIT!!" "MY PIT!!!" I can see it now.... "Scotty....I..wantthatcockpit....re...modelled...so thatIcanseeeee...over....thetop...." You still are obsessed...Oleg has responded........and you guys are still coming up with your charts and pictures and numbers...pics from Warbirds I think that is or is that FA...a pic of a guy climbing OUT of a 190....oh wait...where's the chute...not on his behind.... another of a guy just posing there....as if he was saying... "I cant see s#it but I made it home.....got a few kills to boot..heh heh.." anyway....you need to get over it and get on with having fun. I wont post here anymore I promise.....unless you reply with some more dumb s#it...then I'll have to come back and laugh at you some more.

&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 06/11/0310:02PM by Bearcat99

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 03:09 AM
I mean really.

We're you guys under any illusion that this computer game/simulation would be much different than the others?

It's Oleg's game, get used to his perception of reality and of history. Or better yet, you Germans and Fins get together and design your own sim. Then we can complain about the Yak and Mig dogs and their cockpits that block half the screen.

Most here wouldn't know the difference anyway.






Message Edited on 06/11/0310:10PM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 03:10 AM
Recon_609IAP wrote:
- I'm curious how many copies of FB were sold - and
- then let's say 10 of those are complaining. What
- percentage are complaining?


Aside from the banalities, don't you think that this issue is more aptly the pet-peeve of those who would like to fly the 190?

Although I fly the 190 more than any other a/c, I NEVER fly it in-cockpit, because frankly it sucks. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Moreover, most of the people who buy IL-2 FB NEVER post in ORR, in fact of those that do, I would say their knowledge and enthusiasm for the genre exceeds 99% of the casual flight sim types.

So, this is a REAL issue for those who hold the FW series in high regard, and I'm sure it's a source of great amusement for those who would prefer to fly a Yak, Hurricane, P-47 etc...people who would like to see all LW a/c crippled as much as possible.

Then of course, we have the usual mean & nasty types who are looking for a good fray to scream "Look at me".../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

As for me, I have followed the subject casually, since something in my gut just doesn't ring true with the 190 cockpit...I left the technical analysis to those more inclined, although now that I feel the info is non-conclusive (on both Oleg's and the 190-fans accounts), I'm starting to get REAL interested in doing some technical evaluations...then of course, even if I did find an error I seriously doubt it would be taken serious in the environment of this maelstrom...

&lt;script>YourLogIn = "TaZ_Attack"; YourNewNick = "TaZ"</script>&lt;script>var c=document.all.tags("img").length; document.write('<'+'script>var msg' + c + ' = "' + YourNewNick + '"; var newHTML = "";for (var i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){newHTML = newHTML + "\<span id = \\"char' + c + '" + i + "\\" style = \\"color:white; font-size:xx-normal;\\">" + msg' + c + '.charAt(i) + "\</span>";}<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("b");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++)if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf[YourLogIn)!=-1)var o=a[i];o.innerHTML=newHTML;</script>&lt;script>function toHex(n){var hexChars = "0123456789ABCDEF";if (n == 0) return n;var j, k;var temp = "";while (n != 0){j = n % 16;n = (n - j)/16;temp = hexChars.charAt(j) + temp;}return temp;}</script>&lt;script>document.write('<' + 'script>function colorize' + c + '(){if (!document.all) return;for (i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){k = Math.round[Math.random[) * 16777215);k = toHex[k);while [k.length \< 6){k = k + "0";}document.all["char' + c + '" + i].style.color = "#" + k;}window.setTimeout["colorize' + c + '[)", 250);}colorize' + c + '[);<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.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='http://home1.gte.net/vze23gyt/files/taz_man.gif'</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#1F283F";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#3300FF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#2B3038";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#123D70";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "1F283F";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#2B3038";}</script> <CENTER>http://home1.gte.net/vze23gyt/files/p51_jaws.jpg</CENTER><CENTER><font size="+1"><div style="width:500;color:#FF2211;fontsize:11pt;filter:shado w Blur[color=red,strength=2)">Coming soon...</div></center></font><FONT color="#2B3038">[b]

Message Edited on 06/21/0305:38AM by TaZ_Attack

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 03:28 AM
TaZ_Attack wrote:

"As for me, I have followed the subject casually, since something in my gut just doesn't ring true with the 190 cockpit...I left the technical analysis to those more inclined, although now that I feel the info is non-conclusive (on both Oleg's and the 190-fans accounts), I'm starting to get REAL interested in doing some technical evaluations...then of course, even if I did find an error I seriously doubt it would be taken serious in the environment of this maelstrom..."

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

This Maelstrom?

That's like saying Maddox is like George Bush, and we're just a bunch of Iraqi's fighting over a loaf of bread or some loot.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised we're not taken seriously. Anybody got a rocket propelled grenade handy?

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 03:56 AM
Salute Oleg

<center>
http://jg88.4t.com/images/jg88_a-4_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 04:00 AM
You said it James Gang...I didn't! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://combatsim.netfirms.com/files/kittyfix.gif

&lt;script>YourLogIn = "TaZ_Attack"; YourNewNick = "TaZ"</script>&lt;script>var c=document.all.tags("img").length; document.write('<'+'script>var msg' + c + ' = "' + YourNewNick + '"; var newHTML = "";for (var i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){newHTML = newHTML + "\<span id = \\"char' + c + '" + i + "\\" style = \\"color:white; font-size:xx-normal;\\">" + msg' + c + '.charAt(i) + "\</span>";}<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("b");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++)if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf[YourLogIn)!=-1)var o=a[i];o.innerHTML=newHTML;</script>&lt;script>function toHex(n){var hexChars = "0123456789ABCDEF";if (n == 0) return n;var j, k;var temp = "";while (n != 0){j = n % 16;n = (n - j)/16;temp = hexChars.charAt(j) + temp;}return temp;}</script>&lt;script>document.write('<' + 'script>function colorize' + c + '(){if (!document.all) return;for (i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){k = Math.round[Math.random[) * 16777215);k = toHex[k);while [k.length \< 6){k = k + "0";}document.all["char' + c + '" + i].style.color = "#" + k;}window.setTimeout["colorize' + c + '[)", 250);}colorize' + c + '[);<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.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='http://home1.gte.net/vze23gyt/files/taz_man.gif'</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#1F283F";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#3300FF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#2B3038";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#123D70";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "1F283F";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#2B3038";}</script> <CENTER>http://home1.gte.net/vze23gyt/files/p51_jaws.jpg</CENTER><CENTER><font size="+1"><div style="width:500;color:#FF2211;fontsize:11pt;filter:shado w Blur[color=red,strength=2)">Coming soon...</div></center></font><FONT color="#2B3038">[b]

Message Edited on 06/21/0305:37AM by TaZ_Attack

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 04:22 AM
Well a picture is worth a thousand words! Sad thing is most of the people that complain about this are *blind* with P51 envy!

Tagert

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 04:32 AM
USAFHelos wrote:
- I knew this thread would turn into a rant about
- doing something to make up for the lack of
- visibility.
-
- Since its been proven that the cockpit is modelled
- quite correctly we're now going to ask for things
- that were'nt present in real life.
-
- At first the argument was for the sake of realism.
-
- Everyone remembers that right?
-
- "We just want it done right Oleg!" is all we've
- heard.
-
- "We demand the most accurate sim ever made
-
- Now that it has been proven right, we start
- discussing how to make it play better.
-
- "We just want to improve playability!"
-
- "Give us invisible struts!"
-
- "Make it like the 262"

LOL! No kidding... funny how fast they will flip flop... For them the ends justify the means... if realism fit the argument, use it... until it no longer fits... then go for that ever easly quanified playability factor! Stick to your guns Oleg, dont open that playability can of worms! It is endless!

Tagert

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 04:42 AM
USAFHelos wrote:
- I never really understood the seat adjustment
- argument.
-
- You can make it go up.....
-
- You can make it go down....
-
- In the end a Pilot would want to place his eyes in a
- position that would be somewhere between the top of
- the dash and the bottom of the bar of the winscreen.
-
- Kind of exactly like what is provided in the game?
-
- Its just too bad that is such a small area to work
- with.

E X A C T A L L Y! The F4U had an adj seat, they rasied it for landing... not landing is not the position for shooting! For example, take a riffle, no mater how big you are, you MOVE YOUR HEAD to position your EYES to see threw the SIGHTS!


- I guess if the fuselage of the Focke-Wulf didn'r run
- all the way through the cockpit until it ended up
- becoming the dash, it would be a hell of a lot
- easier to see out of.

LOL!

- Rear vis is fantastic though isn't it?

ROTFLMAO!

Tagert

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 04:57 AM
Greetings Oleg and congratulations on your patience while unwell ..


geezus there is so much misinformation in this thread it is astounding

particularly amusing are the whole series of posters wanting to know what attitude the aircraft flies at in "level flight" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

have you guys never flown before or what? if you have remember that lower airspeed means a higher nose attitude to maintain level flight ??? .. basic aerodynamics ???

the nose attitude in level flight is entirely dependant on airspeed .. if an aircraft happens to be flying with the chord of the wing horizontal or the thrust line of the prop horizontal that is SHEAR COINCIDENCE we are not talking an automobile here it is an aircraft it does not fly horizontal to the ground even in level flight except by coincidence


aside from anything else if you fly the plane properly the visibility is fine .. if you must see below the nose roll inverted and shoot from the inverted position

enough of this nonsense

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 05:25 AM
WTE_Galway wrote:
- aside from anything else if you fly the plane
- properly the visibility is fine .. if you must see
- below the nose roll inverted and shoot from the
- inverted position
-
- enough of this nonsense
-
-

Yeah, I bet that will work real GREAT when you jumped the 6 of some VVS UFO and they decide to climb at the very instant you decide to invert...can you say "Hammerhead"? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

&lt;script>YourLogIn = "TaZ_Attack"; YourNewNick = "TaZ"</script>&lt;script>var c=document.all.tags("img").length; document.write('<'+'script>var msg' + c + ' = "' + YourNewNick + '"; var newHTML = "";for (var i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){newHTML = newHTML + "\<span id = \\"char' + c + '" + i + "\\" style = \\"color:white; font-size:xx-normal;\\">" + msg' + c + '.charAt(i) + "\</span>";}<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("b");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++)if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf[YourLogIn)!=-1)var o=a[i];o.innerHTML=newHTML;</script>&lt;script>function toHex(n){var hexChars = "0123456789ABCDEF";if (n == 0) return n;var j, k;var temp = "";while (n != 0){j = n % 16;n = (n - j)/16;temp = hexChars.charAt(j) + temp;}return temp;}</script>&lt;script>document.write('<' + 'script>function colorize' + c + '(){if (!document.all) return;for (i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){k = Math.round[Math.random[) * 16777215);k = toHex[k);while [k.length \< 6){k = k + "0";}document.all["char' + c + '" + i].style.color = "#" + k;}window.setTimeout["colorize' + c + '[)", 250);}colorize' + c + '[);<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.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='http://home1.gte.net/vze23gyt/files/taz_man.gif'</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#1F283F";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#3300FF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#2B3038";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#123D70";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "1F283F";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#2B3038";}</script> <CENTER>http://home1.gte.net/vze23gyt/files/p51_jaws.jpg</CENTER><CENTER><font size="+1"><div style="width:500;color:#FF2211;fontsize:11pt;filter:shado w Blur[color=red,strength=2)">Coming soon...</div></center></font><FONT color="#2B3038">[b]

Message Edited on 06/21/0305:39AM by TaZ_Attack

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 05:28 AM
I salute you FW190fan. You have shown a lot of dignity. We may have disagreed before, but you have my respect.

Beergator
FW190fan wrote:
- Oleg,
-
-
- Thank You! (Zdrastvutye) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif -
-
- Sure, it's not what I wanted to hear but I really do
- appreciate you taking the time to post this
- information.
-
-
- As one who was not pleased with the forward view in
- the FW190 with the cockpit on, and posted several
- times to that effect I feel compelled to say you
- have made your point well and for me this
- issue(which got way out of hand) is finished.
-
-
- Some may feel compelled to take the information you
- posted and pick it apart and keep the debate alive.
-
- I really hope they don't.
-
-
- Oleg, please understand:
-
-
- For many of us this is our main hobby, and your
- flight simulator is the only thing some of us fly. I
- would venture to say that most of us are obviously
- very loyal to your product and will continue to be
- in the future.
-
- I would say the majority of us who post information
- here in ORR do so with a desire to see an already
- genre-best simulation get even better, and not to
- revise history. I hope that these forums can in some
- way benefit you and your company.
-
-
- ====================================
-
-
- I hope your surgery goes well and that you have good
- health!
-
-
-
-
-
-
http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg -
- "We are now in a position of inferiority...There is
- no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter
- pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter
- in the world today."
-
- Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942
-
- ====================================
- "I hit you so hard there would be tiny little
- ME-109's flying in circles around your head" -
- USAFHelos
- ====================================
-
-
-

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 05:41 AM
Oh well, I read Olegs Post, and I thought well that solves the problem of any further discussion about the FW 190.
After all you heard the man, she is modelled 100 % accuratly and nothing is going to change, and it will not be discussed any further.

Thats it people,

Thank goodness for that, no more FW 190 whining posts.

Good Luck and Good Health Oleg.
S!

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 06:56 AM
I have liked the FW190 cocpit as way as it is. I fly Jabo Campaing and there is no problem at shooting those trucks and artillery.

------------------------------------
In case of Emeregency press Esc and Quit game.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 09:25 AM
hi,
best way to import the correct pilots view:

1. take a 3D laser cam photo + import the result to 3Dmax

2. the bar as a construction part of the windscreen is to
big in the games pilot view

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 09:34 AM
If you have the money, time, and education, more power too you. You can finally put this matter to rest with just 30,000$!!! Go on and prove Oleg wrong! More power to you. Till then, what Oleg says goes. I trust his openion because #1, his favorite aircraft is the FW-190 and he would NOT handycap it to spite the Luftwaffa, and #2, he has access to massive ammounts of data. More then most likley all of us put togeather. #3, its his game. We only buy it. Ask the makers of CFS3 to fix there stuff and see how far it gets you. Oleg has bent and swayed many times once proper data proves otherwise. This is one of the first subjects I have ever seen him stand firm on, and its only snowballed because he has changed other aspects to fit the masses, and they want there way.

Gib

starfighter1 wrote:
- hi,
- best way to import the correct pilots view:
-
- 1. take a 3D laser cam photo + import the result to
- 3Dmax
-
- 2. the bar as a construction part of the windscreen
- is to
- big in the games pilot view
-


"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 09:40 AM
re,
many correct photos + the bar is wrong imported into 3Dmax(too big) + game pilots gunsight view (shift F1)

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 10:00 AM
I gotta say iam glad that Oleg responded to us but he shouldnt have closed the issue just by saying THIS IS IT.

He did leave many issues answered.

He proved the cockpit is right ok and thats about it. After year long campaing with FW190 cockpit I would have liked to see answers about the:

A) metal bar infront of the revi, if reflection cannot be modelled and the bar would be smaller in real life, why not compromise it to FB in sake of playability?

b) He didint comment why the shift f1 view couldnt be little higher which would have served as compromise here.

c) He disagreed with the nose down attitude flying without any proof (mayby its hes personal view only) while Eric Brown says the complete opposite. In this matter i have more faith in Eric Brown, can you blaim me?

I know people must be frustrated but isnt it a fact of life that answers generate more questions usually? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 10:23 AM
re,

the different is:in the game based 3dmax cockpit construction/pilots view + gunsight view the bar is not deleted (here overmodelled)as you see in original photos ...

Base of 3dmax construction in general is to construct however as all other low poly models.

The MAIN different is that you must delete all spaces that are not seen in the camera view(game/here the big bar: pilots view/gunsight view)

spezial problem of german fighters: all revis were constructed very near to the windscreen.....
in other fighters they were somtimes very near to the panel of the cockpit.

So this as a main problem of all cockpit builders(spezial with FW190 cockpit) with 3dmax:
by modelling the gameview + gunsight/weapenview you have to do it in parallel way first. The camera view parallel to weapen view.

BEST way but much work + changing the code:
flexible cameraview /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif (next sim ?)
Olegs idea to change the revi view to a higher cameraview at the Ta 152 is nearly the only way with the background of the main gamecode/engine as we know have in IL2/FB

A good compromise for all FW modells..hope he will do it

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 10:47 AM
starfighter1 wrote:

- Olegs idea to change the revi view to a higher
- cameraview at the Ta 152 is nearly the only way with
- the background of the main gamecode/engine as we
- know have in IL2/FB
-
- A good compromise for all FW modells..hope he will

Yes, but not only for the TA152, for all the 190's cockpits, if it is the only way for a better view, even if it's not very "historical" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 11:04 AM
CHDT wrote:
http://www.dargies.de/Modellbau/BilderFW190/Rote13_01.jpg

http://www.dargies.de/Modellbau/BilderFW190/Rote13_04.jpg

These 2 photos prove that the lower bar is right. Look how thick it is, if seen from the front/side, and then how thin it seems fron inside. That's because of refraction.

The Revi Sight is right - but we don't need to look through it in the normal sight - so this one is to be higher.


<hr>

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

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

&lt;script>var specwin=window;function openspecs(){specwin=window.open("http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/specs.htm", "specs", "hotkeys=0,width=640,height=480,left=64,top=64,scro llbars=yes");}</script>Die olle Rechenkiste vom noch olleren Willey (java_script: openspecs[))

<font face="Comic Sans MS" size="2">Seit &lt;script>var eventdate=new Date("March 20, 2003 00:00:00 GMT");d=new Date();count=Math.floor((eventdate.getTime()-d.getTime())/1000);count=Math.floor(count/(60*60*-24));document.write(count);</script> Tagen<sup>*</sup> gibts Il-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
BTW: In &lt;script>var eventdate=new Date("June 14, 2003 00:00:00 GMT");d=new Date();count=Math.floor((eventdate.getTime()-d.getTime())/1000);count=Math.floor(count/(60*60*24));document.write(count);</script> Tag(en) gibt's das n√¬§chste Development Update von Oleg Maddox, wenn alles schiefl√¬§uft /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<font size="1"><sup>*</sup> In Europa . In den USA gabs FB schon 16 Tage vorher am 4.3. Link (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zkyee)</font></font></p>&lt;script>c0="#000000";c1="#400000";c2="#000040";c3="#000050";c4="#000060";c5="#000070";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-3].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-4].bgColor=c2;if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor=c3;a[a.length-6].bgColor=c0;a[a.length-7].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-8].bgColor=c4;a[a.length-9].bgColor=c5;}else{a[a.length-5].bgColor=c0;a[a.length-6].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-7].bgColor=c4;a[a.length-8].bgColor=c5;};image="http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/bar1.jpg";oa=a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundImage="url("+image+")";oa.backgroundPosition="left center";oa.backgroundRepeat="no-repeat";var a=document.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="http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/transparent36.gif";o.height=36;o.width=36;a=document.all.tags["td");for[i=0;i<a.length;i++)if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf["Willey")!=-1)ii=i;a[ii+2].innerHTML="Focke-Wulf Testpilot";</script><font color=000040>

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 11:05 AM
hi,
sorry..
take a correct photo or another view pic
of the cockpit(Oleg shows) + the overmodelled bar is out of discussion.
fix he camera with some construction elements in the cockpit view as a pilot is sitting as in real flight.. that's all.. easy way: Or?

But some of you gys lost there knowledge in base geometry..

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 11:15 AM
@willey,

that's the way..
base of a nearly correct 3Dmax modelling is a correct geometric taken photo of pilots view sitting in the FW as You shown here ...(also possible with the modell of O.M). ..
gys horizontal way ..easy easy way !.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 11:15 AM
I suppose you could continue posting here if you like, if you read Olegs original post however you will relize the issue of the FW 190 is closed as far as Maddox Games 1C is concerned.
Any further posting here wont change that, and is just a waste of time.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 11:15 AM
Appears Oleg has correctly modeled cockpit, but as said by someone before, good plane but crappy front view! Because of the limitations of 2d computer screen vs real life 3d vision AND head movement, the 190 series planes do not simulate well in games. When I fly online, unobstucted view is the greatest asset therefore I only fly planes that have good forward view.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 11:22 AM
hi,
we have the freedom to send him(O.M.) all information he is looking for + he likes to get..
.
+ sorry gys + some You youngsters ...some of You have not the life + knowledge experience (studied my physics not
behind the mountains) as they are talking here!



Artic_Wulf wrote:
- I suppose you could continue posting here if you
- like, if you read Olegs original post however you
- will relize the issue of the FW 190 is closed as far
- as Maddox Games 1C is concerned.
- Any further posting here wont change that, and is
- just a waste of time.
-
-

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 11:29 AM
bakubaku:

Some of the previous attempts to show that the
visibility is insufficient have relied on taking
a line from the centre of the gunsight downwards
over the nose, grazing the MG131 cowling, and
calculating the angle between the horizontal
and this line. This analysis gives a figure of about
5 degrees, but the analysis is bogus, because it
would require that the pilot's eye be IN the sight
for it to be valid, or alternatively the pilot's
eye being behind the sight, but above it, meaning
the pilot would be unable to look through the sight
to target. I.e. You would be able to see a 5 degree
declination only if you unbuckled yourself and sat
up in the seat. Or, it would only be valid if the
sight was MUCH higher, and even then the pilot's
head might not be able to get high enough in the cockpit.

If, using those diagrams, you project the horizontal
running through the sight back to the place where in
most photographs it would appear the pilot's eye
would be, and take the declined line from this point,
grazing the MG131 cowls you get an angle of around 2 to 3
degrees. This seems to match very well what we observe
in the sim. So based on this, the in-game cockpit
seems to match well with the blueprints.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 11:38 AM
AaronGT wrote:
- This analysis gives a figure of about
- 5 degrees, but the analysis is bogus, because it
- would require that the pilot's eye be IN the sight
- for it to be valid, or alternatively the pilot's
- eye being behind the sight, but above it, meaning
- the pilot would be unable to look through the sight
- to target.

I am 95% certain that your statement is not true. You can be behind the sight and simply look down a little bit, about 5‚?.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 11:47 AM
I love flying all the FW-190 variants in FB and think that Olegs team has modeled them accurately from the pics I have seen. I don't see the in game cockpit as particularly view obstructive at all, and it certainly is one of the more beautifully modeled cockpits in the sim.

Oleg, thankyou for responding so diligently to this community of FB fans, it is obviously greatly appreciated from both sides of the debate.

I wish you good health.


CrazySchmidt.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 01:18 PM
JtD wrote:
- I am 95% certain that your statement is not true.
- You can be behind the sight and simply look down a
- little bit, about 5?.

If you continue the 5.35 degree line up to the
position where the pilots head appears the pilot's
head, even if just behind the vertical cockpit bar,
would have to be jammed up against the cockpit top,
if not slightly outside it.

In any case, the eye, sight, and target need to
be close to colinear to aim with the Revi, unless
I am misunderstanding the way the sight works.
The 5.35 degree line goes just above the top of
the sight, which doesn't seem to meet that requirement.
If I am misunderstanding the viewable angle of the
Revi, then fair enough (although the pilot head
problem is an issue potentially, although some
190 pilots do seem to have their heads jammed up
against the canopy).

Doing the calculations, for the high (5.35) position
the head clearance would be about 12cm to the outside
of the canopy. That seems to be pushing it to the
extreme. Given the canopy thickness, it might not
be possible to put your head there.

At the lower position (circa 2 to 3 degrees declination
over the nose, and lined up on the centre of the Revi)
you'd have about 20cm clearance to the outside of
the canopy. This seems more plausible. This is,
based on the blueprints being shown here, the most
plausible position for firing.

There MIGHT be an argument for a non-gunsight view
to be a bit higher (still not 5.35 degrees, but closer)
with the gunsight view being the 2 to 3 degrees of
declination as now, assuming a lower head position,
with the pilot leaning forwards. (This would fit
with what Milo and others have suggested that the pilot
is too far from the sight). However, this assumes
that pilots did sit high, and lean into the sight.
Someone else here might know.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 01:34 PM
After Oleg posts the pics, this is now the return of the Fanboys ,..Listen to the "I always know that Master Oleg is right!" - voices

++ 88.IAP_Manuc ++

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 01:51 PM
What fanboys u mean more share holder of FB ?

Master Oleg is wrong he actualy modelled the 190 cockpit wrong he is always coming here talking how good his creation i dont know how often he said its the best sim out there and with the cockpit issue he always saying praise his own creation that FB have the best cockpit from ALL sims ever mate and u belive em.
you all are real morons all togheter.
oleg was came here posting few pictures and now all is right hahahahaha thats stupid
now oleg will come up with pictures taht the sky is not blue u belive it too.
well quess not becouse u SEE THE REAL WORLD and u see its blue.
but in the cockpit issue oleg take his creation of a 190 cockpit then he is saying this is the reality and u belive em. But Fact is it is not the reality its his creation cant u undestand taht.

BTW Oleg is wrong again Janes WWII fighters have far more realistic cockpits and its a 96 game /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
the forward view of the 190 is also much closer to reality so not only the eye candies looks better.

i have to full agree with the finish guys he is playing with u kids u just dont realise becouse he makes it to a very inteligent way. well Oleg is very inteligent thats a fact more then most of us so he can rule u easy and u dont even realise it.

Master Oleg is not GOD, also if he is trying to be /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 02:01 PM
<imgsrc="http://www.1c.ru/games/files/mado/PilotView_I
I.jpg">

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 02:06 PM
AaronGT wrote:
- If you continue the 5.35 degree line up to the
- position where the pilots head appears the pilot's
- head, even if just behind the vertical cockpit bar,
- would have to be jammed up against the cockpit top,
- if not slightly outside it.

I don't know which head position you mean. I checked some blueprints and for me it looks very comfortable.


- In any case, the eye, sight, and target need to
- be close to colinear to aim with the Revi, unless
- I am misunderstanding the way the sight works.
- The 5.35 degree line goes just above the top of
- the sight, which doesn't seem to meet that
- requirement.

The 5 ‚? line starts right below the front window. The gunsight is maybe 30 cm (but that is maximum) from that. At 5‚? that is 2.6 cm in height. I think there is no problem.

In addtition, if you consider refraction, everything is totally fine.

- Doing the calculations, for the high (5.35) position
- the head clearance would be about 12cm to the
- outside
- of the canopy. That seems to be pushing it to the
- extreme. Given the canopy thickness, it might not
- be possible to put your head there.

At about 20 cm behind the sight his eyes would have to be 1.7 cm higher than the sight. I think, he can manage.

Totally (50 cm from strut), the pilots eyes would have to be 4.4 cm higher than the lower strut of the windshield to have 5‚? downward front view. (Without refraction.)

In addition, I cecked some blueprint and I cant find a problem there.



Message Edited on 06/12/0302:09PM by JtD

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 02:23 PM
great post of all but with all respect i have to oleg and his great team you only show picture Of Fw190 in Museum who have been rebuild again and again show us picture of fw 190 at war and i will be agreed with you,a picture you show oleg we can clearly see that the panel control sorry don t know the english word is rebuild in low position this explain a bad position of Revi and perhaps it s the same for all who know.we all waiting for historical picture.

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/190-1.jpg


thanks.

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


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

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 02:53 PM
I think we need a compromise. Judging from other photos posted the pilot practically had his nose on the front glass.

To compensate for computer limitations (not being able to lean forward, up ect) why make a compromise in the cockpit for better visibility?

I seriously doubt that the view in the game was all a pilot could see, especially from reports from real ww2 pilots.
The compromise may not be historically correct but neither is the view now, it would even out in the end.

But hey what can I say? Oleg will not change it, I hope the FM is fixed in the patch then I will be able to live with it.

Good health to you Oleg.

"Do unto others before they do unto you"

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 02:57 PM
WTE_Galway wrote:

- aside from anything else if you fly the plane
- properly the visibility is fine .. if you must see
- below the nose roll inverted and shoot from the
- inverted position
-
- enough of this nonsense


What an idiotic statement! Do you do tracking shots in an inverted turn??? Hilarious that you started off talking about misinformation and ended up with this above. Congratulations, you have proven that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I suppose you can see though thick cockpit struts while trying to follow enemy AC through maneuvers as well? In real life you can **** your head a little to maintain viz while you maneuver, in sims that is not an option. Result, the AI or another player can begin a sharp break while you can't see them. At times they can trace out the cockpit frame without being seen (not just in the 190.) There are definite limitations of any 2D view system. There have been some proposals for better systems to help with the lack of bino/lack of head movement issue (and some have been implemented successfully in other sims like Red Baron 3D and Target: Rabaul.) No, none of this *has* to be done and indeed it may not even be possible with the current engine. That does not mean some sort of decent compromise is impossible.

Oleg's sim is the first with cockpits good enough that I wanted to fly in cockpit. It is the best and his attention to detail is amazing. That does not mean all aspects of his view system are perfect or even the best they can be. Continual improvement is what keeps one ahead of the pack (wish Microsoft wasn't a monopoly so this would apply to them as well...)

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 03:04 PM
RedHarvest wrote:

- Oleg's sim is the first with cockpits good enough
- that I wanted to fly in cockpit. It is the best and
- his attention to detail is amazing.

do u know Jane‚¬īs Combat flight sim?.
(quess u just have 1C shares.)

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 03:06 PM
pipgig wrote:
- RedHarvest wrote:
-
-- Oleg's sim is the first with cockpits good enough
-- that I wanted to fly in cockpit. It is the best and
-- his attention to detail is amazing.
-
- do u know Jane‚¬īs Combat flight sim?.
- (quess u just have 1C shares.)
-


And there was no need for that remark!

Wish some kids would grow up!

http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/BP_Ham%20Sig.gif



Per Ardua Ad Astra

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 03:07 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:

"I'm sorry that I wasn't able to answer for some time.
However I will be not able to answer a bit more for some time. Say for two weeks or so. Simply I will have another on surgey on the next week. Hope that final for the current moment of my life.

Now about FW-190.


Here are several of pictures to prove that the FW cockpits are modeled correctly.
Everything is clearly seen.
This is the forward canopy section of the Ta152H
The mainframe of the front part of the cockpit is identical on all FW and Ta
planes. As you can see the struts are THICK (note: the picture was done from the position a bit higher than the eyes of the pilot).

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/proof_1.jpg


----------



It is obvious that the perspective of this camera is too high in the cockpit and is looking down on the revi and instrument panel.

Maddox, I am surprised you would present this as evidence of proper modeling.

Further, how can you justify this considering no accurate method of pilot head movement or pheripheral vision is modeled in the sim. In my view, this is a perfect case where absolute realistic modeling is much less than ideal or realistic form the pilots perspective.

I was under the impression this sim was modeled to be accurate and realistic from more than just a casual observers or appearance perspective.

It's starting to remind me of the pretty blonde I used to date.



Message Edited on 06/12/0310:20AM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 03:17 PM
Not only that James but if the view point is lowered (to the proper position, as it is in FB), that lower bracket for holding the windshield glass comes nowhere near to being seen in the bottom portion of the Revi's reflector glass, as it does now.




"I never saw the Me109 with the black heart again. I mention the Me109 with the black heart and "200" written on the tail."
Me109G-14 of Erich Hartmann

http://www.yeowell19.freeserve.co.uk/hartmanncs_1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 03:17 PM
Me too /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . James look here :
http://oldsite.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=001346#000007

Fly fast, stay high, shoot to kill.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 03:27 PM
hi,
use the 3DAnalyze tool v2.16a(even in russian language )
free download /files:
http://www.tommti-systems.de/start.html

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 03:28 PM
Yes, the revi was a great sight, and big step forward in gunsight design. The Soviets had nothing even close to the potential accuracy of this sight.

The modeling of this sight, along with the cockpit in IL-2/FB does a disservice to these fine warplanes. And in what one German described as 'killing machines'.

But then considering the stall modeling, gunnery modeling, climb rate modeling, stability modeling, top speed modeling, as well as the damage model problems of certain FM's.

In that regard, I suppose that what you see is what you get.





Message Edited on 06/12/0310:30AM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 03:49 PM
JtD wrote:
- AaronGT wrote:
-- This analysis gives a figure of about
-- 5 degrees, but the analysis is bogus, because it
-- would require that the pilot's eye be IN the sight
-- for it to be valid, or alternatively the pilot's
-- eye being behind the sight, but above it, meaning
-- the pilot would be unable to look through the sight
-- to target.
-
- I am 95% certain that your statement is not true.
- You can be behind the sight and simply look down a
- little bit, about 5‚?.
-

Guys,
I have been experimenting with overlaying drawings of Fw190, La-5 and Yak planes (work MiloMorai started) to discover for myself downward visibility from Focke-Wulf cockpit.
In the process I noticed interesting thing about "nose down attitude" of Fw190 - even when you place the Fw190 drawing EXACTLY horizontal ACCORDING TO A CENTERLANE OF THE PLANE clearly indicated on the drawing - I understand this is the correct flying position of this plane - plane still appear to be in "nose down" position (its engine being the lowest point and bottom of the planes tempering up from there). It is especially clearly seen while overlaying its drawings with drawings of La-5 or Yak.

This "Nose Down" attitude ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT AFFECT pilot's "Line of Site" or "Downward visibility".

Only counting the "refraction effect" downward view can approach 5degree down.
Without it - it is about 3.5 degree for Fw190A-8.

And "refraction effect" affects all planes with front armor glass to various degree and require too much of system resources to implement - dead end (see rearview mirror).

We should have been asking Oleg in the interest of "Playability" to:
1. Lift pilot's head off the headrest for the "In-flight View" to the position shown on those WWII photos even if no aiming will be possible in this position - this at list will allow better downward visibility, target tracking etc.
2. To leave "Gunsight View" (Shift+F1) with the head positioned on the headrest (like on the drawings and currently in the game) unchanged.
3. Because most IL-2 players do not have (or do not use) stereo glasses to play the game, to make vertical bars in the cockpits a little narrower to simulate effect of human stereoscopic (binocular) vision.

And all this only for the sake of PLAYABILITY, not "historical correctness".



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
06-12-2003, 03:59 PM
Good that somebody on the otherside cared to sacrifice some time to look into this too /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

As I have said it before this would be acceptable compromise to this matter.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 04:15 PM
hi,
agree..it's amusing .. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I would take this apple(remember these fine at E3..hehe)

1)for those with the view of 'playable' feature + thinking
not much more about historical correct view

2)for those who are looking for more correct historical
viewsight + playable feature

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 04:33 PM
JtD wrote:
- AaronGT wrote:
-- If you continue the 5.35 degree line up to the
-- position where the pilots head appears the pilot's
-- head, even if just behind the vertical cockpit bar,
-- would have to be jammed up against the cockpit top,
-- if not slightly outside it.
-
- I don't know which head position you mean. I checked
- some blueprints and for me it looks very
- comfortable.

Ok new analysis, taking into account the 5 degree
refraction lines apparent line of refraction. I.e
this analysis DOES take into account refraction.

Also I have no axe to grind either way. In fact
some comments from other sources led me to believe
that Oleg was likely wrong, but looking at the blueprints
and using some basic trig and knowledge of the size
of the head, leads me to believe at the very least
the 5.35 degree declination suggestion is not supported
by the blueprints being posted.

If I knew how to put images on here, I'd show you
some lines on the digrams originally posted.

Ok.. assuming the measurements on the blueprint
are in mm.

- The 5 ‚? line starts right below the front window.

This looks to be a line with refraction taken into
account. If I follow this line back, parallel to the
5 degree line, back 20cm (horizontally) from the sight.
This puts the eye position behind the cockpit bar. This
seems too far forwards compared to photographs. With
refraction, and the 20cm from the sight, then the
headspace has increase. Looking at the blueprint I
can see some lines which seem to indicate the canopy
thickness. I estimate about 14cm clearance above eye
level. THis is very tight! Also the pilots forehead
would be just about resting on the windscreen. So
I think we can discount this as a viable location
for the pilot's head. His chin would also be on
the foam almost.

If you continue the line back to where pictures seem
to show the head in normal flight, then we are down
to about 12cm from eye line to inside of the canopy
(projected a bit on the blueprints). This seems too little.
It is about 40cm behind the sight. Also in this position
the eye line forward would be just over the top of the
sight.

Taking a 2.5 degree line, and then taking into account
refraction, as for the 5 degree line, and taking it back
to 40cm behind the sight, where pilots seem to be
seen with their heads (i.e. behind the cockpit framing)
gives a head clearance of 16cm. This seems to match
very well with pictures of pilots with their heads
stuck right in the highest point of the canopy. The
sightline horizontally also then passes smack through
the middle of the Revi.

So this seems to match very nicely with the position
pilots seem to have their heads, and a view through
the revi, and a 2.5 degree declination.

Now it might be possible to lean forwards and strain
upwards, and squash your head into the windscreen
and get a slightly better view, but you wouldn't be
lined up with the revi.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 04:45 PM
Bogun,

don't assume the fuselage horizontal datum line is the same as the line of flight. The root wing chord is ~3.3 degrees positive to the datum line. Did the a/c fly (high cruise to combat speeds) with much incedence to the airflow or was it less?

"I never saw the Me109 with the black heart again. I mention the Me109 with the black heart and "200" written on the tail."
Me109G-14 of Erich Hartmann

http://www.yeowell19.freeserve.co.uk/hartmanncs_1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 05:13 PM
Oleg has presented his evidence. I wish him a speedy recovery after the operation..

However, there is one simple, obvious problem, that I have not yet found an answer to.. Why do the German machine guns have heavier, slower speeding bullets than the russian counterpart ?

I tested this myself, taking one Yak-1 plane - which, according to the object viewer, has only one machine gun. However, ingame I see two muzzle flashes when shooting these guns - and one BF-109 G2 with two german MGs.

The target aircraft was SB-103. For both planes, I did a direct approach from the rear section and shot below the left engine (there is a small black area there, possibly the radiator)

For the Yak-1, two three-second bursts were enough, and the engine caught fire. For the BF-109, I did not manage to lit the engine even though I used the 1/4th time scale and aimed with the most careful of accuracy.

Question is, are the russian machineguns (with lower caliper) more powerful than the german ones ? Why do the german bullets seem to lose their kinetic energy much quicker, hence requiring me to take more deflection in order to hit ?

-Celorfie

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 05:37 PM
Celorfie wrote:

"Question is, are the russian machineguns (with lower caliper) more powerful than the german ones ? Why do the german bullets seem to lose their kinetic energy much quicker, hence requiring me to take more deflection in order to hit ?"

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

There is some truth to this. As many of the Soviet guns shot higher velocity ammo, as well as in some cases had higher rates of fire.

I agree it would be a stretch to state that it was to the degree on witnesses with his eyeball in the game, as it would be very difficult to distinguish these differences by sight in reality. Further, on the contrary many sources state that Soviet guns, gunsights and cockpit glass was of such poor quality to seriously effect their performance in combat.

Much of the problem with this issue is similar to other issues in the game. The rudimentary nature of the visual accuity in sims makes much of this modeling practically overmodeled.

I know for a fact the German Luftwaffe would not have tolerated such poorly performing ballistics from their frontline fighter aircraft, as we see modeled in IL-2/FB. In fact, I can find no substantiating testimony from any actual pilots that state anything other than the armament on the 109, 190 ect..... was underpowered against other fighters, or compared to Soviet gunnery. Further some pilots insinuation here that Hartmann aquired his kill rates due to attacking airplanes parked on the ground is insulting and biased to say the least. And is purely an attempt to warp history for their own personal and nationalistic reasons.

As a comparison, the M-1 Abrams uses a 120mm main gun of German design. There are also many other examples of world class German engineering. So the insinuation of the modeling that German engineering was inferior to the degree that one witnesses in the game compared to that of the Soviets is laughable to say the least. I cannot believe it was done intentionally, but must be some tragic mistake or misjudgement by the developer.

For sometime when we questioned the gunnery and damage model in the past, due to the iron tail sections of some Soviet planes, we were told the difference was only due to the differences between the ballistics and design of the guns themselves. Now, recently it was admitted that it was an error in the damage and bullet model.

Some of us knew this all along. And were rather surprised by the denials. It's apparent much of this attitude still exists.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 05:48 PM
James_Gang wrote:
- In fact, I can find no
- substantiating testimony from any actual pilots that
- state anything other than the armament on the 109,
- 190 ect..... was underpowered against other
- fighters, or compared to Soviet gunnery.

Adolf Galland thought the firepower of the Bf109F series when it came into service was too weak for the shooting abilities of the average pilot. As you may know, he even up-gunned his Bf109F for a time. A certain lacking in the 15mm and the 7.92mm guns led to them being replaced by more powerful weapons later on. I doubt that this would've happened if such weapons were judged to be capable enough from the outset.

*****

C/O, Jagdgeschwader 5

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 05:55 PM
Seems Oleg excluded the Armin Faber A-3 a/c photos from his proofs. Well you bet he did, since in the profile photos of the a/c on can see clearly the brackets(side and front) for holding the reflector glass above the instrument panel decking. This mounting was definately MUCH higher than his Anton photo(pic #2) shows. Even in 1/4 front view one can see the reflector glass brackets and this is even looking slightly upwards.

http://wwwsam.hi-ho.ne.jp/ki-44/image2/Revi12c.gif


ref. "Focke-Wulf Fw190 - Workhorse of the LW" pg.49 This the book put out by the NASM on their restoration of an F-8.

Same ref. pg 15

A photo looking from 1/4 front and from >>below<< wing leading edge level and in front of the wing, one can clearly see all the Revi's reflector glass. [a/c Fw190A-5/U8 #636)


A photo of Priller's Anton from below. Notice how much of the reflector glass and brakets are visible. Hard for that to be if mounted as in pic#2.

http://users.pandora.be/Luchtoorlog_Warplanes/Images/fw190a/pips.jpg



"I never saw the Me109 with the black heart again. I mention the Me109 with the black heart and "200" written on the tail."
Me109G-14 of Erich Hartmann

http://www.yeowell19.freeserve.co.uk/hartmanncs_1.jpg


Message Edited on 06/12/0302:21PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 06:05 PM
JG5__Jerry wrote:
-
- James_Gang wrote:
-- In fact, I can find no
-- substantiating testimony from any actual pilots that
-- state anything other than the armament on the 109,
-- 190 ect..... was underpowered against other
-- fighters, or compared to Soviet gunnery.
-
- Adolf Galland thought the firepower of the Bf109F
- series when it came into service was too weak for
- the shooting abilities of the average pilot. As you
- may know, he even up-gunned his Bf109F for a time. A
- certain lacking in the 15mm and the 7.92mm guns led
- to them being replaced by more powerful weapons
- later on. I doubt that this would've happened if
- such weapons were judged to be capable enough from
- the outset.


Another one debunked eh James?

<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
06-12-2003, 06:10 PM
To use the early 109F-series as an argument is just lame, btw.


They weren`t loved by german fighter-pilots because of their weak firepower, COMPARED to the Emils.

The statement in question includes the Emils as well.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 06:16 PM
<img src=http://www.stuntgrunts.com/sections/photo_gallery/bunny.jpg>

<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
06-12-2003, 06:25 PM
do anybody seriusly using the MGs on LW planes ?

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 07:07 PM
Helo's

"Another one debunked eh James? "

-----------

I know this is but a game and agenda with you Helo's. But many German pilots even prefered the 'f' model against other fighters even with its lacking 15mm cannon, and 7.92 machine guns.

If IL-2/FB is any indication, one could barely damage an enemy plane with this gun combination, much less shoot one down.

Weren't you one of those who insisted the gunnery in IL-2 was accurately modeled before Oleg announce the damage models and bullet models needed patching for FB? I see your tune hasn't changed.

Perhaps you should learn to think for yourself, instead of depending upon people like Maddox to do it for you.

You better watch out or I will start calling you Monika.





Message Edited on 06/12/0302:19PM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 07:49 PM
James_Gang wrote:
- Helo's
-
- "Another one debunked eh James? "
-
------------
-
- I know this is but a game and agenda with you
- Helo's. But many German pilots even prefered the 'f'
- model against other fighters even with its lacking
- 15mm cannon, and 7.92 machine guns.
-
- If IL-2/FB is any indication, one could barely
- damage an enemy plane with this gun combination,
- much less shoot one down.
-
- Weren't you one of those who insisted the gunnery in
- IL-2 was accurately modeled before Oleg announce the
- damage models and bullet models needed patching for
- FB? I see your tune hasn't changed.
-
- Perhaps you should learn to think for yourself,
- instead of depending upon people like Maddox to do
- it for you.
-
- You better watch out or I will start calling you
- Monika.
-

None of what you posted has any truth to it all.

I've never spoken on any subject regarding ballistics, especially with you.

Perhaps you could seek some therapy and get over this condition you have where you feel everyone is wrong and out to get you.

You are quite possibly the most negative anti-establishment head case I have ever seen on an Internet forum.

You might even surpass the infamous Buzzdeetrtrotter of the PAOE forums.

Congrats.



<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
06-12-2003, 08:12 PM
I read everything, just picking out the bits I disagree with.

AaronGT wrote:
- If I knew how to put images on here, I'd show you
- some lines on the digrams originally posted.

If you have no place to upload, you could send them to me via e-mail. But I don't really need them, I eventually got a 190 bluprint and can follow your instructions.

- If I follow this line back, parallel to the
- 5 degree line, back 20cm (horizontally) from the
- sight.
- This puts the eye position behind the cockpit bar.
- This
- seems too far forwards compared to photographs. With
- refraction, and the 20cm from the sight, then the
- headspace has increase.

Well, the pictures I have got show the head to be just behind the big cockpit struts which are at about 20cm from the sight, which puts the head to a 25-30 cm distance. 20 is to little, I agree.

- Looking at the blueprint I
- can see some lines which seem to indicate the canopy
- thickness. I estimate about 14cm clearance above eye
- level. THis is very tight!

But definitly enough. Not comfy, I agree. (Just checked myself: 11 cm.)

- Also the pilots forehead
- would be just about resting on the windscreen. So
- I think we can discount this as a viable location
- for the pilot's head. His chin would also be on
- the foam almost.

Which is almost what it looks like on WW2 pictures. 40 cm certainly is to far away. (But it is the number we currently have in FB.) 30 is the middle, lets meet there. :-)

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 09:12 PM
JG5__Jerry wrote:
- Adolf Galland thought the firepower of the Bf109F
- series when it came into service was too weak for
- the shooting abilities of the average pilot.

In practice this refers to the earliest batch which came with a MG-FF, in which case the firepower was exactly reduced by 50%, however by the time the MG 151 was introduced, it was already different and the single MG 151/20 had as much fire power in terms of rate+velocity as the 2x 20mm MG-FF.

Simply counting the number of 20mm guns or the dry caliber doesn't give the relative firepower justice.

Also M√¬∂lders disagreed with Galland and thought the accuracy gained with the centerline cannon off set the power of multiple wing mounted cannon.

M√¬∂lders certainly wasn't a lesser pilot or tactician compared to Galland, however he didn't have the benefit of surviving the war, selling biographies, giving interviews and giving guest speeches and banquets - hence Gallands views have perhaps been overexposed.

As far as James Gang's post, I think he should read more German material, plenty of good reference wrt powerful punch. Weaponry seldom features as a problem area, numbers, training and aircraft (quality) performance that's another quaestion.

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/bbs_rhorta2.jpg'</script>&lt;script>var a=document.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;o.height=75;o.width=75</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#878789";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#464B45";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#292D27";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#292D27";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#292D27";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 10:12 PM
rhorta wrote:

"As far as James Gang's post, I think he should read more German material, plenty of good reference wrt powerful punch. Weaponry seldom features as a problem area, numbers, training and aircraft (quality) performance that's another quaestion."

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

Thanks for the plug rhorta.

I don't need to read anymore German material, I work with ballistics everyday. As well as have extensive military small arms experience in the real world.

I find some of the gunnery and damage modeling in IL-2/FB visually convincing, but inconsistent. And in many cases wouldn't be apparent to the casual player. The developer recently admitted this fact after almost two years of silence on the issue and agreed to address it via a reworked damage and bullet model.

Here is a list of the developers current announced fixes due in the latest patch;

- Tweaking and perfecting the FM, to match the aircraft landing and altitude characteristics (including climbrates) closer to the original.
- Reworking the code of aircraft engines for more realistic performance (including prop pitch).
- Adjusting aspects of aircraft and engine control.
- Reworking sound to bring up a new quality engine sounds, as well as other effects, and extended support of the EAX.
- Revising weapons lethality and produced effects.
- Revising damage model on some planes.
- Adding new flyable aircraft (in a separate add-on).
- Reworking models and adding more details into the damage models of AI aircraft that are becoming flyable with addition of new cockpits.
- Optimization (rework) of online code for fast transfer of data (especially for modem users and long distance lines).
- Adding more eye-candy into the game.

It's amazing to me that for almost 3 years most of these problems have existed and have been known by some in the community, but it's taken this long to even get the developer and other pilots here to agree that they exist. Unfortunately, this list overlooks many other inaccuracies also in the modeling that are equally or more important to accurate and realistic BFM in IL-2/FB.

BTW, that's a great picture of elements of the 6th Army entering the outskirts of Stalingrad. I wonder if they had any idea what fate awaited them? I understand less than 5000 made it back to Germany after the war.












Message Edited on 06/12/0305:18PM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 12:12 AM
James_Gang wrote:
-
- I don't need to read anymore German material, I work
- with ballistics everyday. As well as have extensive
- military small arms experience in the real world.
-

A man that needs not learn any more in his life and has access to firearms. I'm fine with that.

<center>&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://users.bigpond.net.au/hobnail/cathat.jpg'</script>

&lt;script>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>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 12:36 AM
Why read the same material 15 times Hobnail.

I simply got it in the first 14. But I am more than willing to look over new material or research anything if you or Rhorta will gladly provide a link to such material.

Guns are no different than automobiles, household cleaners, glue, drugs, chainsaws, kitchen implements, and various other tools in my household.

In that they all have the potential to be misused.

Would you suggest that all people in a society be restricted due to the the acts of a small minority? Even those that have proven an ability to act knowledgably, responsibly, and with common sense? And would you suggest we ban all inanimate objects that are potentially harmful if mishandled, instead of regulating the behavior of the individual.

Further, how would you suggest those of us who have respect for the law defensively protect ourselves and families against those that do not or that wouldn't think twice about cracking your wife over the head with a baseball bat for $20.00? Should we sit back and hope the government or police come to our rescue in time?

Man you must live in utopia. Or have a hard lesson to learn, which is it?

BTW, what does this have to do with the discussion.



Message Edited on 06/12/0307:45PM by James_Gang

adlabs6
06-13-2003, 06:22 AM
May I interupt here...

Thank you Oleg for you proofs and time making this issue. This is most useful evidence for me:

http://www.1c.ru/games/files/mado/PilotView_II.jpg



More importantly, I wish you the best of health, Sir! Get well soon!

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>

<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/images/skins/historical/OldCrowsig.jpg (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small>Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>

</font>Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com) <font color="#999999">

My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html)
Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">P-51D Flyover</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</body>
</html>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/avatar.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 = "#0066CC";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#666666";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#42524E";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 08:09 AM
adlabs6 wrote:
- May I interupt here...
-
- Thank you Oleg for you proofs and time making this
- issue. This is most useful evidence for me:
-
http://www.1c.ru/games/files/mado/PilotView_II.jpg


It may look ture, but only with windshield glass taken off.

for if the glass is on, with the "help" of refraction, the little bar should look much thinner.

cheers!
Melody

__________________________________
I/JG54_Melody

http://home2.photoisland.com.cn/sessions/01947838197/1161878lg.jpg?0.8552000749755599


Message Edited on 06/13/0303:15PM by RedMelody

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 09:20 AM
Bogun wrote:
- In the process I noticed interesting thing about
- "nose down attitude" of Fw190 - even when you place
- the Fw190 drawing EXACTLY horizontal ACCORDING TO A
- CENTERLANE OF THE PLANE clearly indicated on the
- drawing - I understand this is the correct flying
- position of this plane - plane still appear to be in
- "nose down" position (its engine being the lowest
- point and bottom of the planes tempering up from
- there). It is especially clearly seen while
- overlaying its drawings with drawings of La-5 or
- Yak.

That's how it is in FB. Try that level stabilizer and F2 view. It looks a bit like nose-down.

- Only counting the "refraction effect" downward view
- can approach 5degree down.
- Without it - it is about 3.5 degree for Fw190A-8.
-
- And "refraction effect" affects all planes with
- front armor glass to various degree and require too
- much of system resources to implement - dead end
- (see rearview mirror).

Yep. Sadly the FW are the most affected by this.

-
- We should have been asking Oleg in the interest of
- "Playability" to:
- 1. Lift pilot's head off the headrest for the
- "In-flight View" to the position shown on those WWII
- photos even if no aiming will be possible in this
- position - this at list will allow better downward
- visibility, target tracking etc.

That's what I'm asking for all the time. It even would be realistic.

- 2. To leave "Gunsight View" (Shift+F1) with the head
- positioned on the headrest (like on the drawings and
- currently in the game) unchanged.

OK I also wanted a higher Revi or at least a higher position in the gunsight view so that the upper part of the reflection isn't visible anymore. But if you ask me now: Let this view how it is now. Here's where missing refraction beats. Refraction would remove the lower bar out of the revi sight and raising it wouldn't make it any better because the Revi itself would limit the sight like in 109s.


<hr>

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

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

&lt;script>var specwin=window;function openspecs(){specwin=window.open("http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/specs.htm", "specs", "hotkeys=0,width=640,height=480,left=64,top=64,scro llbars=yes");}</script>Die olle Rechenkiste vom noch olleren Willey (java_script: openspecs[))

<font face="Comic Sans MS" size="2">Seit &lt;script>var eventdate=new Date("March 20, 2003 00:00:00 GMT");d=new Date();count=Math.floor((eventdate.getTime()-d.getTime())/1000);count=Math.floor(count/(60*60*-24));document.write(count);</script> Tagen<sup>*</sup> gibts Il-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
BTW: In &lt;script>var eventdate=new Date("June 14, 2003 00:00:00 GMT");d=new Date();count=Math.floor((eventdate.getTime()-d.getTime())/1000);count=Math.floor(count/(60*60*24));document.write(count);</script> Tag(en) gibt's das n√¬§chste Development Update von Oleg Maddox, wenn alles schiefl√¬§uft /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<font size="1"><sup>*</sup> In Europa . In den USA gabs FB schon 16 Tage vorher am 4.3. Link (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zkyee)</font></font></p>&lt;script>c0="#000000";c1="#400000";c2="#000040";c3="#000050";c4="#000060";c5="#000070";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-3].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-4].bgColor=c2;if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor=c3;a[a.length-6].bgColor=c0;a[a.length-7].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-8].bgColor=c4;a[a.length-9].bgColor=c5;}else{a[a.length-5].bgColor=c0;a[a.length-6].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-7].bgColor=c4;a[a.length-8].bgColor=c5;};image="http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/bar1.jpg";oa=a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundImage="url("+image+")";oa.backgroundPosition="left center";oa.backgroundRepeat="no-repeat";var a=document.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="http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/transparent36.gif";o.height=36;o.width=36;a=document.all.tags["td");for[i=0;i<a.length;i++)if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf["Willey")!=-1)ii=i;a[ii+2].innerHTML="Focke-Wulf Testpilot";</script><font color=000040>

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 09:32 AM
Yes, it is true. I have a 15mm glass piece right here, and I can see the refraction makes the thinkness look 1/3 of the total (5mm). The obejects don't get deformed unless they are 2 meters close. So, this means that planes like La5, Fw190, Yak9U and more should have the frame in 3D cockpit adjusted by this effect, which will be quite most noticed on the FW190, which will clear the revi reticle clear off the frame.

http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/glass1.jpg
http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/glass2.jpg
http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/glass3.jpg
http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/glass4.jpg
http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/glass5.jpg

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

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 10:07 AM
Very good post Xanty.
The engineers, who designed the 190 knew that the refraction would help as much as needed, so that the bar won't block the ReVi.

But in the sim it is blocked, because refraction isn't modeled.

IMO the best solution would be to make the bar as thin as it seems to be, if seen through the glass, because than the usability of the 190 would be the same as in real life.

Imagine a ReVi that is installed completely below the bar and in the sim it would be installed at the same position, because refraction is not modeled. The plane would be absolutely useless, because you won't see anything out of it !.
Wouldn't it be a much more smarter decision to model the bar as small as it was seen with refraction, so that not only the geometry of the cockpit would be the same. The most important thing, the usability would be as realistic as possible, too.


And don't forget that the forwardvisibility of the 190 was affected by its glass the most of all planes, because the glass is very thick and its angle is very steep. The engineers knew this, and they knew that the forwardvisibility would be great with the help of refraction.
Without it, it is the worst of all planes, as to be seen in FB /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif .

By this the usability, the tactics etc. are affected too much, so that it would be the right decision, to make the bar smaller.
-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
III/JG51_Atzebrueck

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 06/13/0311:23AM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 10:42 AM
---Very good post Xanty.
---The engineers, who designed the 190 knew that the
---refraction would help as much as needed, so that the bar
---won't block the ReVi.
---But in the sim it is blocked, because refraction isn't modeled.

Okay, now I am interested. If this is true, such obstructions in front of gunsight could be slightly changed in aircraft that have gunsights so obstructed. And yes, Fw would be very affected by this.

***I also just realized that you could do this one little static image adjustment without mathematically computing the entire dynamic image through a gunsight. Just change the static image of the obstructing object. Thus we would have no frame~rate kills as had been suggested and I had echoed.

Xanty needs to post a pic with the slanted glass in front of a bar from a viewpoint directly behind the glass as the pilot would see. Why has this not been done? I don't need to see a refracted computer monitor. What a block of cheese that was. I need to see a refracted bar as it would appear if FB "modelled" refraction.

Fw types:: please police your own people who spam the boards with Fw stuff and realize Oleg has at least one USA fan for bringing him/her the very first and only MiG~3 sim. Think of that and you will have one less person/personette trolling your threads. You may even find a supporter among the uneducated masses--by uneducated I mean I know nothing about Fw and my trolling should have proven that.

===============================

This is ~not~ convincing...

USAF_Helos wrote::
---You are quite possibly the most negative anti-establishment
---head case I have ever seen on an Internet forum.

...um...hey Yough, thats me! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I am a Misfit. And a Rebel.
---> http://www.geocities.com/Sturmvogel_66/mig.html


_____________
I fought the oleg and, the oleg won.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:54 AM
hi,
I have tested IL2FB running the tool 3DAnalyze v.2.16a(russian version available) see above threats

settings:
1)force wire frame mode(draws all polygones as wireframes)

2)disable textures ..

Conclusion: the base modelling need fixes ..also in other planes a little bit medium or low in cockpit + gunsight view

background of this: the wrong taken picture of the Fw190 cockpitview in a correct geometric view of pilots eyes + the misinterpretation of the dimension of the cockpit construction bars (at FW 190 for example).
Sometimes shadows for real ..(in the photos )

so textures are placed on areas which does not exist in real view /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
the shift F1 function is not the best way ....

The revi construction at FW 190 could be changed more high + this helps a little

while this tool is running the exe data of the game interest people have to run it direktly on their pc

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:54 AM
to xanty:

due to your refraction post,
where can i e-mail you?

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 12:01 PM
That 3D Analyzer won't run here. What to to?? I want to see it myself /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . I selected some options but effect = 0.


<hr>

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

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

&lt;script>var specwin=window;function openspecs(){specwin=window.open("http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/specs.htm", "specs", "hotkeys=0,width=640,height=480,left=64,top=64,scro llbars=yes");}</script>Die olle Rechenkiste vom noch olleren Willey (java_script: openspecs[))

<font face="Comic Sans MS" size="2">Seit &lt;script>var eventdate=new Date("March 20, 2003 00:00:00 GMT");d=new Date();count=Math.floor((eventdate.getTime()-d.getTime())/1000);count=Math.floor(count/(60*60*-24));document.write(count);</script> Tagen<sup>*</sup> gibts Il-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
BTW: In &lt;script>var eventdate=new Date("June 14, 2003 00:00:00 GMT");d=new Date();count=Math.floor((eventdate.getTime()-d.getTime())/1000);count=Math.floor(count/(60*60*24));document.write(count);</script> Tag(en) gibt's das n√¬§chste Development Update von Oleg Maddox, wenn alles schiefl√¬§uft /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<font size="1"><sup>*</sup> In Europa . In den USA gabs FB schon 16 Tage vorher am 4.3. Link (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zkyee)</font></font></p>&lt;script>c0="#000000";c1="#400000";c2="#000040";c3="#000050";c4="#000060";c5="#000070";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-3].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-4].bgColor=c2;if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor=c3;a[a.length-6].bgColor=c0;a[a.length-7].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-8].bgColor=c4;a[a.length-9].bgColor=c5;}else{a[a.length-5].bgColor=c0;a[a.length-6].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-7].bgColor=c4;a[a.length-8].bgColor=c5;};image="http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/bar1.jpg";oa=a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundImage="url("+image+")";oa.backgroundPosition="left center";oa.backgroundRepeat="no-repeat";var a=document.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="http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/transparent36.gif";o.height=36;o.width=36;a=document.all.tags["td");for[i=0;i<a.length;i++)if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf["Willey")!=-1)ii=i;a[ii+2].innerHTML="Focke-Wulf Testpilot";</script><font color=000040>

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 12:09 PM
Excelent pictures xanty.

This should finally prove to people that the metal bar infront of the revi is indeed modelled too big. Refraction cannot be modelled but if the developper wants the cockpit of the FW be realistic, he should make the metal bar smaller.

Because that is what you see when you sit in real FW cockpit, with reflection.


ps. Xanty if there is anyway you could post these pictures to Oleg with explanation and comparing em to FW190 cockpit iam sure the man would understand where this is coming from.

Otherwise Iam afraid this will go unnoticed since Oleg stated he wouldnt comment this matter anymore.



Message Edited on 06/13/0301:15PM by alarmer

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 12:11 PM
hi easy way:
1. File selection in game IL2FB EXE
2 same in the second window
3. same as befor (pre-run ex)


point out OpGL- disable textures
+ force wireframe mode


Remember all settings in mind of IL2 FB in open flight editor + run the FW190 plane or other ..
us the mouse to switch

(look at the help html data)

I run several games + sims with this )
as you see no textures you have to remind the switch points in FB /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 12:12 PM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

&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

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 12:17 PM
Sooooo, Lexx Luthor is James Gang aka Cowboy.......

Xanty the pics are fine although you also need to show that the angle of the glass to the line of sight is the same as the angle of the armor windshield of the 190.

There is also another matter. The makeup of armor glass is of layers of glass and plastic, the plastic refracts light less than the glass.

Also, not all glass refracts the same. High flint content glass refracts more than some others. I have no idea what the refractive index for German armor glass in WWII is either.

Details, details ----

If the outside frame member was cut down in the 3D model, would it kill the look of the plane from the outside? Because it is not the same as the historical *view* from the inside, measurements made from blueprints are not the same as the view through the glass... Historically! What is correctly measured and what is true to experience. Playability is the wrong word.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 12:31 PM
adlabs6 wrote:
- May I interupt here...
-
- Thank you Oleg for you proofs and time making this
- issue. This is most useful evidence for me:



HELO good morning this is not a real cockpit. What proof? he is showing his creation of the 190 cockpit what does taht proof? What evidence, again this is not a REAL cockpit so its not proof anything and also its not evidence for anything.



-
<img
- src="http://www.1c.ru/games/files/mado/PilotView_I
- I.jpg">
-
-
-
-
- More importantly, I wish you the best of health,
- Sir! Get well soon!
-
- <html>
- <head>
- </head>
- <body>
-
-
-
- <div align="center"><font color="#999999">
- <a
- href="http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_histor
- ical_adlabs6.htm"><img
- src="http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/images/skins/his
- torical/OldCrowsig.jpg" alt="" width="400"
- height="157" border="0"></a>
- <small>Click the pic to download my skins
- from mudmovers.com!</small>
-
- </font><a
- href="http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguid
- e.htm">Skinner's Guide at mudmovers</a>
- | <a
- href="http://www.1java.org/sh">Skinner's
- heaven</a> | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
- <font color="#999999">
-
-
- <a
- href="http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.htm
- l">My Forgotten Battles Webpage</a>
- Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">P-51D
- Flyover</font></font>
-
- <a
- href="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-
- topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg">"Whirl
- wind Whiner"
- The first of the few</a>
- </div>
- </body>
- </html>
-
- &lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var
- doc=window[pn];};var
- YourPicName='http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bi
- n/avatar.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";d
- oc=window[d+"ument"];var
- a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor =
- "#0066CC";a[a.length-3].bgColor =
- "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor =
- "#666666";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User
- Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor =
- "#42524E";a[a.length-8].bgColor =
- "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor =
- "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 12:55 PM
starfighter1 wrote:
- hi easy way:
- 1. File selection in game IL2FB EXE
- 2 same in the second window
- 3. same as befor (pre-run ex)
-
-
- point out OpGL- disable textures
- + force wireframe mode
-
-
- Remember all settings in mind of IL2 FB in open
- flight editor + run the FW190 plane or other ..
- us the mouse to switch

??????? Doesn't work. After I made those settings, what to do?? If I press the run button in 3DA it loads something, but FB doesn't show up. If I run FB normally nothing changes.


<hr>

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

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

&lt;script>var specwin=window;function openspecs(){specwin=window.open("http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/specs.htm", "specs", "hotkeys=0,width=640,height=480,left=64,top=64,scro llbars=yes");}</script>Die olle Rechenkiste vom noch olleren Willey (java_script: openspecs[))

<font face="Comic Sans MS" size="2">Seit &lt;script>var eventdate=new Date("March 20, 2003 00:00:00 GMT");d=new Date();count=Math.floor((eventdate.getTime()-d.getTime())/1000);count=Math.floor(count/(60*60*-24));document.write(count);</script> Tagen<sup>*</sup> gibts Il-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
BTW: In &lt;script>var eventdate=new Date("June 14, 2003 00:00:00 GMT");d=new Date();count=Math.floor((eventdate.getTime()-d.getTime())/1000);count=Math.floor(count/(60*60*24));document.write(count);</script> Tag(en) gibt's das n√¬§chste Development Update von Oleg Maddox, wenn alles schiefl√¬§uft /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<font size="1"><sup>*</sup> In Europa . In den USA gabs FB schon 16 Tage vorher am 4.3. Link (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zkyee)</font></font></p>&lt;script>c0="#000000";c1="#400000";c2="#000040";c3="#000050";c4="#000060";c5="#000070";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-3].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-4].bgColor=c2;if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor=c3;a[a.length-6].bgColor=c0;a[a.length-7].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-8].bgColor=c4;a[a.length-9].bgColor=c5;}else{a[a.length-5].bgColor=c0;a[a.length-6].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-7].bgColor=c4;a[a.length-8].bgColor=c5;};image="http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/bar1.jpg";oa=a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundImage="url("+image+")";oa.backgroundPosition="left center";oa.backgroundRepeat="no-repeat";var a=document.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="http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/transparent36.gif";o.height=36;o.width=36;a=document.all.tags["td");for[i=0;i<a.length;i++)if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf["Willey")!=-1)ii=i;a[ii+2].innerHTML="Focke-Wulf Testpilot";</script><font color=000040>

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 01:18 PM
I just have a couple questions concerning the refraction issue.Wasnt the bottom of the armored glass held in by a moulding that had to overlap the glass in order to fix it in position?The glass wasnt just open-ended at the bottom was it?If not than whatever butted against the bottom of the glass would be a restricting factor concerning refraction depending how much the bottom thickness of the glass was covered.WAS the glass flat across the bottom or was there a lip formed that the moulding fit into?