PDA

View Full Version : Thick glass and refraction. Important assesment



XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 09:37 AM
This is an example of how the refraction makes the thickness of a flat think glass (armored) look much thiner, without making any deformation to the object seen by it. It should help in the discussion of the view of the FW190 as well as La5, Yak9, 109E/F armored glass. etc.

The thicknees of this glass is 15mm aprox, and it translates on a viewed thinkness of 4mm aprox when viewed in a steep angle (as in FW190). The steeper the angle, the smaller the border seen gets.

It tells me that the 190 glass frame should be much thiner, and therefore offer increased view (bottom) though the frontal armored glass and clear the revi sight of any obstacles. This can be re-done in 3D with no dificulties.

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
http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/glass6.jpg


Message Edited on 06/13/0308:45AM by xanty

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 09:37 AM
This is an example of how the refraction makes the thickness of a flat think glass (armored) look much thiner, without making any deformation to the object seen by it. It should help in the discussion of the view of the FW190 as well as La5, Yak9, 109E/F armored glass. etc.

The thicknees of this glass is 15mm aprox, and it translates on a viewed thinkness of 4mm aprox when viewed in a steep angle (as in FW190). The steeper the angle, the smaller the border seen gets.

It tells me that the 190 glass frame should be much thiner, and therefore offer increased view (bottom) though the frontal armored glass and clear the revi sight of any obstacles. This can be re-done in 3D with no dificulties.

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
http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/glass6.jpg


Message Edited on 06/13/0308:45AM by xanty

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 09:40 AM
Interresting, the glass would more or less place the pilots view relatively higher compared to no glass at all??

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 09:46 AM
Very right. Missing Refraction is why the "bar" is visible behind the Revi and why it looks so thin on photos. The bar itself is right - at least for the later 190s which have MG 131 (A-8< in FB) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . Those Bentley drawings show it beeing thiner, so this *might* be for MG 17 equipped ones.

xanty wrote:
This can be re-done in 3D
- with no dificulties.

Sure?? Oleg told it would be too much...


<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, 09:50 AM
What is the thickness of the armored glass in the 190 variants? And in La5/Yak9/109E/f?

Making a the frame thinner in 3d is one of the easier task, as just 4 or 8 vertices need to be changed, and not even remapping should be re-done. A 5 minute task? (in 3D max, + reincorporating it on the game, whcih should be faily easy as the change is so minimal).

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

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 10:47 AM
xanty wrote:
- What is the thickness of the armored glass in the
- 190 variants? And in La5/Yak9/109E/f?
-
- Making a the frame thinner in 3d is one of the
- easier task, as just 4 or 8 vertices need to be
- changed, and not even remapping should be re-done. A
- 5 minute task? (in 3D max, + reincorporating it on
- the game, whcih should be faily easy as the change
- is so minimal).


Its not about making struts thinner. Main problem is what whole view should be changed due to refraction. And modell refraction accurately is quitie hard as its not linear - i.r. effective refraction shallow POV angle is different from effective refraction at steep POV angle. And that would require a change in whole graphic engine.

All in all, i find its quite amusing what all that crying come from the very some ppls who proud to fly without padlocks , GPS and speedbar. They name it "full real" lol. In RL its much easer to navigate and spot planes then in sim, so i would call it more "full difficulty" as its fore sure not real. I suggest them to think about refraction restiction in some way - its "full real" in this sense lol.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 10:53 AM
Xanty proves what I've been saying...Revi Position, Head Position, and 3d model are all correct, but refraction makes the bottom frame look smaller in real life than in the game.

But I'm not sure, I think the idea of simple changing the 3d model is somewhat a crude one.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 10:58 AM
Chromatorg ... changing the bar would be the easiest solution, because that way, it won't block the ReVi anymore, which is totally unrealistic and affects 190 way too much in a negative way. Other planes don't have those problems, so that there is no need to modify their cockpit.

And please don't change the topic ... navigation etc. has got nothing to do with the 190 forwardvisibility.

-------------------
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=homeion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:11 AM
I'm just wondering if there are different 3D models for the inside and outside of the planes, because that's what it would take to make the measurements ***as viewed rather than as measured*** look correct from inside and outside without adding refractive effect to every rendered frame.

Please note that while that effect would make the bottom frame look lower, it would also make the top frame look thicker... and that is not counting the very minor refractions at the sides or the extremely minor attendant distortion as view angle changes from point to point on the glass from the eye and this is why eyeglasses are curved on both front and back (one of my brothers is an optician). Curved cockpit glass should give a truer view than flat.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:17 AM
That's what I meant, refraction has more effects than just lowering the front bar.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:17 AM
That's not important ... the most important point is that the Focke Wulf engineers used the refraction to achieve maximum protection for the pilot with a good forwardvisibility at the same time !

If there wouldn't be an optical effect as refraction the engineers would have never installed the ReVi so low. I guess they would have created a much more different cockpit.

The forwardvisibility was based on the refraction !!! And if IC is not able to model refraction, they should simulate the correct forwardvisibilty at least /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif .

I guess you don't understand it, but the performance of the whole plane is influenced by the big metalbar infront of the ReVi. It blocks the part of it which is used the most, to aim at a target, if you attack from above.
And you have to attack the latewar planes of the VVS
from above. Without the bar in front of the ReVi you would be able to down the plane after the first attack. But with the incorrect cockpit, you need much more attacks and with every path you burn more and more energy, until you have to dive and run away /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif .
If you hit a plane while attacking it from above, it's luck. With a minor modification of the cockpit, the performance of the 190 would depend on the skill of its pilot.

-------------------
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=homeion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

Message Edited on 06/13/0312:27PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:26 AM
WOW Nice Job Maybe Oleg will Re-Asess his earlier View that he will not change the FW in light of this new Reality!!!

Thanks Oleg for all your Work

Recover Soon from Surgery !!!

<CENTER> http://home.mchsi.com/~zmarinaro1969/shin1.jpg </center>

<Center><div style="width:700;colorhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gifurple;font-size:14pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=black,strength=11)"><Center>
I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold
I am alive forevermore.
I am the Alpha and the Omega
the Begining and the End.</div> <center>

<center><FONT COLOR="red"><B/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif ӚFJ= M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/B][/i]</FONT>

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:33 AM
Atzebrueck wrote:
- That's not important ... the most important point is
- that the Focke Wulf engineers used the refraction to
- achieve maximum protection for the pilot with a good
- forwardvisibility at the same time !

I realized this fact a while ago. It's truly astonishing! One of the most briliant ideas I say.

A flat, uniform thickness glass, viewed at a right angle, will make things behind it a bit closer, and the glass itself thinner, as can be seen in the photos. Viewed at an oblique angle, there's the additional effect of parallel shifting of the line of sight.

Translated into the case of FW view, the "bar" and left/right struts will all be thinner, and the view shifted a little higher than without glass. Now this would give the FW all the needed view!

I'm looking forward to refraction modelling!

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:34 AM
Refraction will never happen. Sorry but that would basically be the same as using ray lighting which is far beyond today's technology to render in real time.

Each seperate pane of glass would have to have its refraction angle and index calculated every frame with indefinite variances based on camera posistion.

Then you get into the molded curved glass of late bubble canopies... It just gets insane.

Personally I still think what is wrong from Olegs own pictures is the front glass's lower sill frame is way too high, and it was probably put that high by the modeler to hide the back end of the MG bulges which are just 2 polygons and have no back plane.

Every picture in which you can see the bar on the real deal you can also see the top of the dash/instrument panel. When looking thru the gunsight you cannot see any of the top and therefore simple geometry tells you that the frame bar wouldn't be visible.

But in the end it comes down to Oleg feels its too much effort to change and investgate vs. output. And has put his foot down on the matter. Further discussion really is irrelevant.

http://cragger.freeservers.com/images/il2_sig_1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:50 AM
Xanty, can you post a pic of the slanted glass resting on the table with a pipe or bar in front of it, with the bar also resting on the table or elevated above? This would let us see the total vertical displacement of the image. The point of view should be through the glass from the back.

Better than a horizontal bar/pipe is a wide vertical oriented ruler, half of which is seen through the glass, the other half seen normally extending beyond the glass. If we can measure the displacement, the better.

Please make the photo against a uniform background--like a white sheet of poster board.

I would like to see this. I do not need to see a refracted computer monitor. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Right now I can't see what you guys are talking about.

Please list the index of refraction and angle of slant of the glass.

Thanx!

I am assuming the Fw190 horizontal bar is mounted just in front of the slanted glass. True? False? I dunno.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:55 AM
You don't have to model refraction in the game, just the resulting changes in view. A trick perhaps, but a realistic one.

Oleg has used tricks before to make the game look more believable like the forests (layered bitmaps).

I was convinced by Oleg's explanation (although I think the photo was shot too high), but the photo's of the refraction of the glass from the original poster of this thread changed my mind.

In offline play (which I mostly play) the thickker bars just add to the challenge, but online play can be more difficult because of the competitive nature. For me the cockpit doesn't have to be changed. It does make me want to check out the big airspace museums in the world...

blackTIE

Cragger wrote:
- Refraction will never happen. Sorry but that would
- basically be the same as using ray lighting which is
- far beyond today's technology to render in real
- time.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 12:04 PM
Agreed! Changing a static image of the bar will not adversely affect computing as has been accused (and I echoed)--unlike computing the entire dynamic refracted image of *everything* seen through the glass.

Am I missing something here? But where is the equivalent to the bar in Xanty's pic? Is this bar attached to the bottom of the glass?

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 12:04 PM
hi,
agree...
this is not simulated + I tested the game in 'wireframe mode + without textures'

Try it + your eyes + some of here arround open fast

3DAnalyze v 2.16a(see olegs threat)

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 12:16 PM
xanty wrote:
- What is the thickness of the armored glass in the
- 190 variants? And in La5/Yak9/109E/f?

IIRC the glass in FW was 60mm....

http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

"Armor on the FW-190 is located in the following areas: the pilot is protected by the engine and 60 mm armored glass. Nose of the plane enclosing the oil radiator is made of 5 mm armored plate; the rest of the nose is 3 mm armor."

BTW:

Two synchronous 7.92 mm MG-17 machine guns in upper engine housing. Machine guns fire at 800 rounds per minute. Each machine gun has 750 rounds.
Two synchronous MG-151 cannons in the wing by the fuselage, firing through the propeller. Cannons fire at 500 rounds per minute. Each cannon has <font size=4>250</font> rounds.
Two synchronous MG-FF 20 mm cannons in the wing, firing outside the propeller diameter. Cannons fire at 520 rounds per minute. Each cannon has <font size=4>90</font> rounds.

!!!!!!!!!!!



<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, 12:29 PM
I agree with this post , actually I read it twice and finally begin to see the idea why german engineers used thich slant armor glass in FW190 cockpit.

This had a huge impact on visibility from the cockpit especially forward visibility. Not only the lower metal bar blocking the sight would be smaller also the side struts would look smaller.

Oleg has made tricks before to help get realistic feeling I think this should be one of em too. I understand the reflection cannot be modelled. I think the wisest thing would be to change the cockpit to compensate this effect in other words make the lower iron bar smaller and mayby the side struts too.

I dont know about the upper bar, would the reflection make it bit bigger? if so by all mean, i would sacrifice that for little wider and better aiming view.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 01:28 PM
Interesting,but dosnt that effect only work on glass that does not have a solid object covering the bottom thickness?Isnt there a moulding that is used to hold the glass in place at the bottom?Does that bottom attachment peice overlap the outside of the glass?Would this not void the refraction effect?

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 01:32 PM
No, it affects all objects, that are behind the glass.
The effect is visible the most, if the object is not too far away from the glass.

-------------------
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=homeion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

Message Edited on 06/13/0302:40PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 01:43 PM
and the MG bulges would never block the sight in real taht much.

The MG bulges are over modeled (to big) in FB to real.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 02:00 PM
alarmer wrote:
-- Oleg has made tricks before to help get realistic
- feeling I think this should be one of em too. I
- understand the reflection cannot be modelled.

The reflection CAN be modelled, at least for the FRONT FLAT ARMOR GLASS, although at a cost of framerate.

How do I know this? Because the MIRROR was modelled.

The image in the mirror is rendered in real time, at a different point of view, different field of view, different angle of view, from the "main view". By the realistic placement of the mirror (meaning not sticking it to the top of the screen...) it's obvious the 3d engine is capable of putting a secondary 3d image at an arbitrary place.

How to do the refraction then?

Find out the expected point of view change due to refraction (there's even NOT ANY change in field of view or angle of view). Render this secondary 3d image and put it where there's view through the armor glass. Done!

Perhaps you were saying "...the reflection cannot be modelled ON OUR CURRENT COMPUTERS." Then I have to agree with you. I don't know how much fps gets killed and I bet no one knows, unless it's Oleg himself having done some testing.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 02:11 PM
Hmm.Then it seems that a modification to the FW is in order.I would also very much like to see another view instituted into the game that would simulate a pilot looking above the normal view within the restrictions of the cockpit.I dont really see much utility with that super-close gunsight view we have now.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 02:15 PM
I believe this has been discussed before fellows. Xanty, I believe Oleg never said that a 'refraction fix' on a single plane would be terribly difficult (5 minutes sounds a bit optimistic to me, but thats another story), but the fact there are so many flyable planes (80+ now, even more than when he went over this the last time), most of which would require an edit because of armor glass. Oleg mentioned that it would not be possible to model refraction in a realistic way with Il-2engine, and it would be too big of work, so they would not be able to do it. I do believe your correct with regards to why the frame appears 'thinner' on real life photos of FW190, but the work for all the planes for a 'simulated' fix seems to be a bit prohibitive to me.

Please forgive me if I'm misquoting Oleg here as I'm unable to find the original postings on this matter, but this is how I remember it.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 02:21 PM
But the 190 is the only plane, where the refraction was required to achieve the intended forwardvisibility !

No other plane has an glass, that is installed in such a steep angle. No other plane's visibility depends on it.

And a good forwardvisibilty is very important for a B&Z fighter.


IMO it would be sufficient, if the bar would be remodeled to the size, how it would be seen with refraction.
There is no need to simulate fps eating refraction, just modify the little bar a bit. That shouldn't be too much work. They reworked the cockpit of the La5FN and even build completely new ones !

The Fw190 is one of the most important planes of FB and it's ability is restricted by a small bar /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.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=homeion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

Message Edited on 06/13/0303:41PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 02:24 PM
Atzebrueck you are damm right.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 02:30 PM
Great post Xanty.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 02:33 PM
Guys its not refraction its the view moves up when hitting Shift/F1.Why is this not being talked about I dont know.

Look at the bar in no/shift mode,its not in the way.then shift/F1 and the view moves up and bar moves into revie view.Now if Oleg were to give us a lower view in shifted mode....then the crosshair is to low in revi.Look where crosshair is when in unshifted mode....its not centered in revi!!


*****************THIS IS WHY HE WONT/CANT FIX IT.The guns would have to point more up to fire into crosshairs.Its a problem with the original design of the cockpit/exterior views and how they work together.

He has stated that modeleing refration is too cpu intensive...give that one up already....go instead with the cutout of the graphic for the bar instead...I see this as doable but will Oleg agree???




Message Edited on 06/13/0309:35AM by Wolfstriked

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 02:35 PM
No, wolfstriked, you are wrong /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . Maybe the point of view is set too high, but the refraction is very important aspect, that is responsible for the good view of the 190.


But the solution you are talking about is the only one, which is possible at the moment: Modifying the metalbar.


-------------------
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=homeion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

Message Edited on 06/13/0303:37PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 02:47 PM
I agree that the issue is not that the cockpit is incorrectly modeled or pilot's point of view is incorrect, but rather that refraction has not been taken into account.

THAT SAID, this point (refraction) has already been raised and OLEG responded to it, indicating that modelling refraction would gobble up too many fps... he's also indicated that the 190 forward view will not be changed.

With all due respect, I think we have to understand that we may not like his decision, but that he has provided his reasons and indicated that he will not revisit the issue...

perhaps it's time to let this one drop, even if Oleg is
wrong it's his right to be wrong.

CG

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 02:53 PM
Hmm but this decision makes the 190 unflyable for FR servers.

Maybe they should have invested the time, they needed to build the cockpit, in other planes /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

... and it's all about the one small, but too big metalbar, that destroys all their work /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .



If I was Oleg, I would modify the cockpitframe as fast as possible /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .


Btw. somehow I doubt, that the 190 is really Oleg's favourite plane /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif . I don't want it to be better than in real life, I just don't want it to perform worse, either /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif (e.g. the forwardvisibilty).

-------------------
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=homeion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

Message Edited on 06/13/0303:57PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 03:07 PM
Oleg said hes FW190 cockpit is very well modelled and it is.

The reflection is other matter.

The point is, if you would hop into a real FW190 cockpit the metal bar infront of the revie would be smaller due to the steep armor glass.

I think it would be only realistic to model that too in FW190 cockpit since in real life, you wouldnt able to see that metal bar atleast not so big.

Most of you might think we are just going over and over this stuff, but if we woulndt this thing would be forgotten in about 1-2 days.

I hope xanty can make some more pictures in the way willey asked before, would help alot to see the difference.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 03:17 PM
Just a small little cutout on the bar is not much to ask for.This will be my final comment on this post/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 03:41 PM
Very nice post indeed.

The reality result is visible here:



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



Cold_Gambler wrote:

-if Oleg is wrong
-it's his right to be wrong.


LOL Gambler



Message Edited on 06/13/0303:04PM by TheRealMatrix

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 04:02 PM
Ok visuals ae importand but what about the fact that it doesn't seem to matter wheater you sit behind armoured laminated glass like in the 190 or the unarmoured P-39 (In reallity it had retrofitted aurmoured glass!)the polikarpov's and the Some Yak's, you will get killed if your hit by gunfire or flak bursts and the glass panel will show verey unrealistic bulletholes in your windscreen and canopy or at least your aiming device will be damaged beyond use!

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 04:47 PM
Atzebrueck,

Your point that the ANGLE the glass is placed at, is critical. This is what induces the image shift, if one looked thru the glass perpendicular to the surface there would be no image shift.

I believe the 190s armored glass is set at a steeper angle than most other fighters.

By the way, this I find is a interesting subject, and does effect the 190 more than otherplanes. It may have very well played an important role in the design of the cockpit and its function, therefore the issue shouldn't be brushed aside without serious consideration.

Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 05:28 PM
Yes,I think this whole debate is showing that FW diddnt just slap the cockpit and conopy together without serious considerations,like some others have implied.The steepness of the glass will also increase the effectiveness of bulletproofing obviously.And still no-one has addressed the increased height of the canopy in later FWs.Im quite sure they did that to allow for more movement and adjustibility of the pilot.Actually thats a no-brainer.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 06:05 PM
Almost forgot...



Where can I get my offical Wurgerwhiner membership kit? You know the T-shirt, manual, photo ID, and so on./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Yes, WalterMitty the armoured glass would be more effective.

Too bad the 190 cockpit discusssions have gone on so many side roads, the most important issue (see above) may have been obscured by all the dust.

Oh, also the Wurgerwhiner theme song I propose being;

Beatles; We can work it out.

"Try to see it my way, Or do I have to keep on talking till I cant go on". /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 06:05 PM
Great job Xanty /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

If to model refraction need big job and eats too many FPS, it's better to reduce this bar, from 3/3 to 1/3.

Or better, remove it Oleg /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 06:27 PM
Good post. Should this also apply to the 109?

Camo

Camouflage
XO, Lentolaivue 34
http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 06:47 PM
Not as much as for the 190 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif , because the limiting bar of the 109 is not in the glass, but in front of it (in FB).

Additionally, the glass is not installed in the same steep angle as that of the 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=homeion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

Message Edited on 06/13/0308:00PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 06:54 PM
nice post xanty always lookin forward to your work. Anoher fix her up???
S!

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 07:13 PM
Nice work!

This is the best argument yet! I knew it was a factor, but dindt realise just how big until you posted those picutres! Nice work!

Tagert

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 07:26 PM
A photo of a high mounted Revi in an Anton

http://users.pandora.be/Luchtoorlog_Warplanes/Images/fw190a/pips.jpg


Note the brackets for the reflector glass can be clearly seen from below unlike in Olegs pic#2 which was looking downward.

This should help raise the sight line over the lower windshield 'bar' even more.


JtD, this thread is what I was trying to explain in my PM. If the sight line is to the inner surface of the glass, then any outer surface objects should also be as seen from the inner surface. (plain of reference)

"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 06/13/0302:35PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 07:43 PM
Hello back all:

1. As you can see in my last glass picture, the computer seen in the back is almost undeformed. And that is only 2 meters away. Reffraction only affects close-by objects. In most planes, onlt the engine cowling may be deformed slightly, and anything beyond some meters (2-5?) will look THE SAME AS IF THERE WAS NO GLASS/REFRACTION. This means that unless the enemy plane is at real "point blank", the view should not need any changes at all. No need for a separate computation like the rear view mirror. If we discard the little influence of refraction in the first 5 meters, we have a perfectly accurate view. NO deformation needed. See for yourself on image 5. The Image is not deformed, the thickness of the glass (bottom) yes.

2. The top side will be thick, but not changes would be needed to what we have in LA5/Yak9 or FW190, as what we are seeing is the metal frame that holds the glass anyway. However, the bottom and sides will be much narrower, including the frame. if you look at a window-display on the high street, when armored glass is used (against thieves) you will see that it looks just as the normal thin glass, but it is in reality 4 times thicker. Frame and all is refracted to a thiner size.

3. in terms of 3D, well, for one, they changed the Mig cockpits to show the actual frames as they should. Same should be done for Fw190, or does it not deserve the SAME atention? Like I said, in 3dsmax it would take little time indeed. Ask anyone. I am not sure about re-importing on engine, but as it doesn't need realocation of cameras/POV/instruments or FM, I say EASY.

I think this will make a major impact on the FW190 as most of the time I find myself super-guessing where the enemy is, and shooting on the air most of the time. Even atacking enemies from slightly above is impossible (unless one can aim blind/guess well). It sure doesnt affect the AI either.../i/smilies/16x16_man-happy.gif

I would like some cleaver comments on this, and let oleg and hist talented team think about it.

Please, please...let the whole anti-and-pro"luftwining" paranoia out this thread. Clean game.

I strongly believe the change should be commited.


Message Edited on 06/13/0306:49PM by xanty

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 07:54 PM
Okay, so it is the whole front canopy screen that is causing the refraction, and not just the little square of gunsight? Was I missing that? Sorry.

widgeon wrote::
---Too bad the 190 cockpit discusssions have gone on so
---many side roads, the most important issue (see above)
---may have been obscured by all the dust.

Thank you. Somebody finally says it. Most confusing for us ignorant and happy few. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

If Xanty is making his/her own photographs, I still need to see a Xanty pic with a refracted bar or pipe against a uniform background, rather than a refracted computer monitor. Otherwise we see nothing useful in these pics of background clutter. Thanx.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 08:02 PM
Lexx: This is hard to do. I need a place for that, and time.

If I set up a bar close to it, it get deformed (60 cm close). However, I could use buildings or some sort of big blocks to calculate deformation due to refraction. As far as I can tell, my eye hardly sees a difference beyond 2 meters.

Also, due to camera limitations, either the foreground or background gets focused. However, I will try better next time. I will also include a small frame of some sort or some dark tape.

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

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 08:14 PM
Xanty, thank you very much for your efforts!

They are very much appreciated, and very convincing as well!

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 08:17 PM
Thanks !! A blanket or sheet draped behind may be helpful. Could you use an iron pipe for bar? Forgive me if I still am rather ignorant. When I was trolling away, I was wondering if the Fw argument was that far away aircraft were "raised" into view over the nose with the refraction.

dumdeedum. http://www.boardy.de/images/smilies/kopfpatsch.gif

*ugh*

I was confused, as always.



Message Edited on 06/13/0307:17PM by LEXX_Luthor

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 09:30 PM
Cragger wrote:
- Refraction will never happen. Sorry but that would
- basically be the same as using ray lighting which is
- far beyond today's technology to render in real
- time.
-

Uh...can you read? That is not what ANYONE was asking for. Rather we asked for some compensations to be made to obtain the same over the nose view without severe pitfalls. Yep, it's a dead issue. But it would be nice if those so eager to push it into the grave actually understood it rather than rehashing the same IRRELEVANT argument. It's like asking for an orange only to be told, "sorry, you can't have any because we are out of apples." Yeah, so what does that have to do with anything? That is not what was requested.

For the record:
The Bentley A3 drawing had an incorrect interpretation of the view angle as it should have started at the pilot's eye, rather than the windscreen. Several of us re-did the calcs and the effect is still substantial and results in a view in the neighborhood of 4+ degrees. (way better than what we have in the sim.) It is not as important in most other planes because the glass is closer to perpendicular to the line of sight. A lot of good could be done by either adjusting the frame, and/or slightly moving the pilot AND gunsight postion up an inch. (Doesn't work right if you leave gunsight low, but move pilot's head up--many folks don't comprehend this.)

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 09:53 PM
WalterMitty wrote:
- Interesting,but dosnt that effect only work on glass
- that does not have a solid object covering the
- bottom thickness?Isnt there a moulding that is used
- to hold the glass in place at the bottom?Does that
- bottom attachment peice overlap the outside of the
- glass?Would this not void the refraction effect?
-
-

The effect doesn't make the lip itself smaller but does make the lip appear to move down as if the glass is MUCH thinner.

Cool?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 10:15 PM
Red~Harvest...to...Cragger
---Uh...can you read? That is not what ANYONE was asking
---for. Rather we asked for some compensations to be made

Speaking from recent expericence, I must admit that I could not read either. I see now that changing the dimensions of a static image is fine for my frame~rate, and I feel really *dumb* having echoed the CPU Refraction Computation argument. Just make sure you punish your own people who insult the one (1) person/personette who let me sim a MiG~3 (and took all my money for my MiG /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif ), and then others won't make fun of your ideas, and may even start trolling (politely) on your side. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

In fact, it was my initial laughing at the Refraction argument that made me do my troll thread on Relativistic effects not modelled for Fw-190.

It is "comforting" (whatever that means) to hear more statements that Oleg modelled the Fw190 cockpit correctly but also failed to model refraction. Yes, the BAR is annoying. I am listening now to the Refraction argument. If *enough* people listen, Oleg will eventually have to also.

I never fly Fw-190, but I hate to see hard core simmers unhappy with a sim that I am enjoying, only because their favorite aircraft may be crippled by the limitations of the nature of current flight sim grafix.

All this is if the Refraction argument is true. I am waiting on Xanty's new and improved photos. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif So keep punching away.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 10:18 PM
xanty wrote:
- Lexx: This is hard to do. I need a place for that,
- and time.
-
- If I set up a bar close to it, it get deformed (60
- cm close). However, I could use buildings or some
- sort of big blocks to calculate deformation due to
- refraction. As far as I can tell, my eye hardly sees
- a difference beyond 2 meters.
-
- Also, due to camera limitations, either the
- foreground or background gets focused. However, I
- will try better next time. I will also include a
- small frame of some sort or some dark tape.
-

Try using a piece of graph paper with as dark a grid as possible and hold it close enough to be in focus. Yes, I know you say that objects far away are less distorted but that is because the width of them is a small angle from the POV of the camera. Angles are angles and the bigger the angle the more distortion which is extremely small at small angular differences.

The graph paper will catch all that and more. Also take two pics, one with the camera very close to the glass and one with the camera not so close. In fact, since it is a PC camera you can move the thing and watch the changes in real time, hehe. If you hold the glass flat to the camera with the camera very close then you can see the distortion effect cleanly.

I need to look over your pics some more because it seems that the cleanest fix would be to model thin glass from the inside view, but something nags me that that would not do it right and I can't picture thin bottom edge with thick sides but I remember your picture answers that.

EDIT: Now I see! The near outside edges look thick while the edges (only) viewed through the glass look thin. Since the armor glass is in a frame, the top will look thick while the sides will look not quite so thick but still thick and the bottom will look thin so the bar will look lower clamped to the thin appearing glass at the bottom. It would be easy to fix with good accuracy if the inside 3D model is not the same as the outside 3D model, but much harder if they are the same model, for then only reducing the height of the bar would balance inside and outside accuracies and inaccuracies... what we have now is ALL the inaccuracy being on the inside VIEW (as opposed to 3D parts layout).


Neal




Message Edited on 06/13/0305:26PM by WWMaxGunz

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:27 PM
Are you guys EVER going to stop this madness?


Give it a break, the rest of the community is laughing at you, and moreover we are tired of you.

Stop searching for a band aid for your poor flying skills.

sheesh.....

<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
06-13-2003, 11:42 PM
Quess the last poster didint even read the thread.

Xanty have you any idea when you could do some more pictures? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:47 PM
ElAurens wrote:

- Are you guys EVER going to stop this madness?


Have you read the original post?
And you did understand it?

If so, which I doubt, how can you speek about "madness"?


- Give it a break, the rest of the community is
- laughing at you, and moreover we are tired of you.


Please notice that the Blitz-Pigs don`t represent "the rest of the community", will you?


- Stop searching for a band aid for your poor flying
- skills.


In case you shouldn`t know: The original poster of this thread is one of the most-skilled and experienced modeller who ever worked for this game. He is, let me call it like this, the third experienced guy behind Oleg and Luthier.
(I`m sure he his gentleman enough to disagree in this case).


What exactly was it again what you contributed to the game and to the community? Have you ever contributed anything serious and non-insulting to this or any other topic?

Can we expect something contaminating like your squadmates Hitson and Junkerjug had to contribute to one of the other threads?

So finally: WTF are you talking about?

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:51 PM
ElAurens wrote:
- Give it a break, the rest of the community is
- laughing at you, and moreover we are tired of you.
-
- Stop searching for a band aid for your poor flying
- skills.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif ... you are really tired /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=homeion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:04 AM
Oh cripes. Oleg, PLEASE, PLEASE, remove the 190 from your sim in the next patch. MAKE IT STOP!!!

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:09 AM
Ok pls dont try to turn this into a flame thread..

Xanty has something to contribute to the sim , I hope you will let him do it.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:22 AM
define flaming - who exactly am I flaming?

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:23 AM
What actually is the 'request' for Oleg here? I don't think its actually been stated, someone should put it in words if for no other reason Oleg can at least see it and not have to guess what everyone is thinking.

Is the request to 'adjust' the FW190 cockpit to add a simulation of the 60mm Windscreen refraction? What about the problem of re-modeling the other 50+ aircraft in the game to simulate armour glass refraction (the biggest part probably being to get each model and variant with correct windscreen thickness, type of refraction, slope,)? In my opinion that does seem a bit prohibitive when considering the workload (counting the research required to get each windscreen correct.

adlabs6
06-14-2003, 12:27 AM
Xanty, you are at the heart of the issue being discussed. The image you posted of the PC through the glass is most descriptive.

I once owned a piece of lexan that was close to 18 inches long, 7 inches wide, and 2 1/2 inches THICK, it's weight was many pounds. It was bulletproof for some caliburs as far as I know. When you looked through the edge of this lexan angled as you have your sample, the refraction level was INCREDIBLY high, higher than any other I've probably witnessed through a non-curved medium. If I had not sold the lexan last year, I would have taken a pic in the way you did to represent the extreme 'shrinkage' of the opposite lower edge.

Simulation of this effect through modifying the model would be vastly more effective than a 'raytrace' fix could.

Still, Oleg will not fix it, and IMO it's not really a showstopper compared to other issues.

I just wanted to post here to verify what Xanty has shown. I have owned a piece of 70mm armour glass, and when angled like a aircraft windscreen, it's true thickness is hidden due to massive refraction.

<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
06-14-2003, 12:34 AM
ZG77_Lignite wrote:

- What actually is the 'request' for Oleg here? I
- don't think its actually been stated, someone should
- put it in words if for no other reason Oleg can at
- least see it and not have to guess what everyone is
- thinking.


Don`t worry about that.

Oleg and Xanty knows each other very well.
You can be very sure that Oleg don`t need a "translater" to get the point, unless you would assume that Oleg doesn`t understand anything about the topic.


- Is the request to 'adjust' the FW190 cockpit to add
- a simulation of the 60mm Windscreen refraction?
- What about the problem of re-modeling the other 50+
- aircraft in the game to simulate armour glass
- refraction (the biggest part probably being to get
- each model and variant with correct windscreen
- thickness, type of refraction, slope,)? In my
- opinion that does seem a bit prohibitive when
- considering the workload (counting the research
- required to get each windscreen correct.


If you would have read the original post, and if you would have followed the thread, and if you would have understood it, well...

Well let me say it like this: Your opinion is the direct opposite of what Xanty said. So how about YOUR modelling-skills and experiences?

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:51 AM
"I like peaches." -BuzzU

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 01:03 AM
I flew the 190 again on a FR server.

The elevator isn't that much of a problem, if you trim it bit upwards.
But if you dive down on an enemy, you don't see him ... 1/2 or 1 cm would make a huge difference, because the bar just blocks the area, where I would see the enemy, while flying B&Z /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif .


At the moment, the forwardvisibilty of the 190 (FB) is really the worst part of that plane /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.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=homeion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:24 AM
leonid05 wrote:
-
- ElAurens wrote:
-
-- Are you guys EVER going to stop this madness?
-
-
- Have you read the original post?
- And you did understand it?
-
- If so, which I doubt, how can you speek about
- "madness"?
-
-
-- Give it a break, the rest of the community is
-- laughing at you, and moreover we are tired of you.
-
-
- Please notice that the Blitz-Pigs don`t represent
- "the rest of the community", will you?
-
-
-- Stop searching for a band aid for your poor flying
-- skills.
-
-
- In case you shouldn`t know: The original poster of
- this thread is one of the most-skilled and
- experienced modeller who ever worked for this game.
- He is, let me call it like this, the third
- experienced guy behind Oleg and Luthier.
- (I`m sure he his gentleman enough to disagree in
- this case).
-
-
- What exactly was it again what you contributed to
- the game and to the community? Have you ever
- contributed anything serious and non-insulting to
- this or any other topic?
-
- Can we expect something contaminating like your
- squadmates Hitson and Junkerjug had to contribute to
- one of the other threads?
-
- So finally: WTF are you talking about?


-Sir, the inscessant whining about something as trivial as the armoured glass not being modeled is what I call madness.

This has NOTHING to do with the BlitzPigs. This post is mine and mine alone. And as far as the rest of the comunity goes, get a grip. Most folks who own FB or IL2 don't even fly online, much less show their faces here. They come home after a hard day at work and look for a few moments of diversion. They are not looking to re-write history in their favour, unlike some who post here.

In short, my comments stand.

I have seen far too many "pilots" fly the FW190 with aplomb to even begin to think that is has a visibility problem. I will agree that there are some FM issues that need attention. So why not put your energies to work on that issue?


And as far as the original post goes...please note that my comment about flying has NOTHING to do with modeling virtual aircraft. I have absolutely no problem with the 3D models in this sim. My comments are about flying skills, not the ability to model virtual planes. I have nothing but respect for those who spend inumerable hours, days. months, making the wonderful aircraft that we "fly". And no, I'm not a great pilot, and I do not claim to be. I just wish my life was as uncomplicated as yours is, so that I would have so much time to waste on 2mm of framing on a virtual aircraft model.

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
06-14-2003, 04:05 AM
---THICK, it's weight was many pounds. It was bulletproof
---for some caliburs as far as I know. When you looked
---through the edge of this lexan angled as you have your
---sample, the refraction level was INCREDIBLY high,


What pilot is looking through the EDGE of the glass windscreen? What are you all talking about?

Is this the idea? I can understand this.


................./ / ...slant windscreen (or slant Revi whatever)
................/ /
.............../ /
bar....---->/ /
............./\/------> bar shifted down
............/ /
.........../ /



Message Edited on 06/14/03 03:06AM by LEXX_Luthor

Message Edited on 06/14/0303:09AM by LEXX_Luthor

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:46 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- EDIT: Now I see! The near outside edges look thick
- while the edges (only) viewed through the glass look
- thin. Since the armor glass is in a frame, the top
- will look thick while the sides will look not quite
- so thick but still thick and the bottom will look
- thin so the bar will look lower clamped to the thin
- appearing glass at the bottom. It would be easy to
- fix with good accuracy if the inside 3D model is not
- the same as the outside 3D model, but much harder if
- they are the same model, for then only reducing the
- height of the bar would balance inside and outside
- accuracies and inaccuracies... what we have now is
- ALL the inaccuracy being on the inside VIEW (as
- opposed to 3D parts layout).
-
-
- Neal

Actually how much "thinner" the bars will be viewed through glass is the same. If the index of refraction of the glass is 4/3 then all bars viewed through the glass will have 3/4 the original thickness. Also the glass will have 3/4 the original thickness, too.

Modelling refraction by transforming 3d models is a viable way. While not as accurate as the mirror method I stated, it takes far less computing power. BUT the transformation should exetend to all parts of the 3d models that can be seen through the glass. See pic below.

http://w3.phys.ntu.edu.tw/~b90202051/FBtracks/cockpit3.jpg


That means the external model should be modified in addition to the internal model. If not, it will still be viable, even less accurate, though.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 06:32 AM
To illustrate that further, I made a rough copy of the diagram in 3D Studio Max.

http://geocities.com/fennec50/ref.txt

On the right you see what it would look like with no glass in it. On the left you see what it looks like with lexan in it (which I'm assuming has a similar IOR to the glass they used historically). The image on the right looks roughly like what you see in FB, the image on the left looks like it does in RL photographs. Refraction makes a very large difference.

I wish this would be modelled, even if only in a simplified fashion (ie. just make the darn bar thinner til it looks realistic). I think realism is more important that the imaginary ignominy of having to do a refraction fake.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 07:04 AM
Fennec I don't think you got it right at the bar. The bar shrunk to about 0.3 times its original height, where the 1.6 IOR should make it 0.625 times its original height.

Please check.

The struts near the POV seem to be right.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 07:19 AM
Wow guys, Great work, Great posts.

This thread really sums it up and hits right to the point. I don't think anyone can read this thread and deny that the FW forward view is hosed.

THIS SHOULD REALLY BE FIXED BY OLEG AND DEV TEAM

sorry, I am no ranter, but this is really messed up.

Luftwaffe only has 2 fighters (many variants)
One (including variants) is hosed (FUBAR)

This just really sucks. Anyone who cared would not have taken the stance Oleg did. He would have been more open to the fact there may be a real problem and certainly more open to correcting it if found wrong.

I don't feel it's too late though. How could Oleg and Dev team ignore this (IMHO) conclusive post?

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaase Oleg

Snap out of it man!

But on same breath Oleg, Love your sim, it is the best to date! Keep up the good work, just stay humble. Also good luck with any medical difficulties, we're pulling for u! We need you and you need us! Lets just all start acting like it!

Again, great fricking Post everybody!!!!!

KALO

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 08:10 AM
HomeboyWu wrote:
- WWMaxGunz wrote:
-- EDIT: Now I see! The near outside edges look thick
-- while the edges (only) viewed through the glass look
-- thin. Since the armor glass is in a frame, the top
-- will look thick while the sides will look not quite
-- so thick but still thick and the bottom will look
-- thin so the bar will look lower clamped to the thin
-- appearing glass at the bottom. It would be easy to
-- fix with good accuracy if the inside 3D model is not
-- the same as the outside 3D model, but much harder if
-- they are the same model, for then only reducing the
-- height of the bar would balance inside and outside
-- accuracies and inaccuracies... what we have now is
-- ALL the inaccuracy being on the inside VIEW (as
-- opposed to 3D parts layout).
--
--
-- Neal
-
- Actually how much "thinner" the bars will be viewed
- through glass is the same. If the index of
- refraction of the glass is 4/3 then all bars viewed
- through the glass will have 3/4 the original
- thickness. Also the glass will have 3/4 the original
- thickness, too.

The bar we see is a flange that covers the lower part of the front of the glass on the outside. Anything from the front of the glass will appear more or less true to height on the back, only appear to be shifted down. So, no the bar itself will not be thinner unless you count the part of the bar that is the frame under the edge of the glass which will appear shorter as anything along that edge including the edge itself appear shorter/thinner. Since that part will be decreased, the top of the bar will move down, but how far I don't know just that actual photos through the FW190 glass have to be taken from a higher angle than proper sight view in order to see the bar top intrude on the sight picture nearly as much as what we see in IL2/FB. The pilots' eye is not modelled high at all but without refraction effect corrected for in the 3D model, the bar intrudes and clips a much important part of the field of view for not just one planes but the entire series.

- Modelling refraction by transforming 3d models is a
- viable way. While not as accurate as the mirror
- method I stated, it takes far less computing power.
- BUT the transformation should exetend to all parts
- of the 3d models that can be seen through the glass.
- See pic below.
-
- That means the external model should be modified in
- addition to the internal model. If not, it will
- still be viable, even less accurate, though.

I don't agree for 2 simple reasons.

1) It would definitely change the outside appearances of the models unacceptably, small though the changes are in measurement.

2) It would require a massive amount of work in the 3D models and every skin for those.

Other than that, yes from the inside view a lowering of all up front would be more correct. The lowering would not be just a parallel drop though. A very slight angling down of the entire nose would also be required as effectively the view is raised... and I do mean VERY slight.

Yes, if the bar only is lowered then the view over the nose from inside MAY still not be correct, but it will be more correct than it has been so far in an effective direction. Your picture does say very much.

Yah?????????????????

Perhaps the rear of the gun bulges would need 1 poly each to block view of the tops of the bulges into the nose from the back. Just a thought, if there didn't need to be any before then there may not be any now.

I have had a thought about models seen from inside and outside and I believe that perhaps since the skins are seen from outside (please correct me if I'm wrong, I am guessing) then maybe the skins can show the bar from the outside without having it blocked from the inside... so realism from inside and outside would both be served.

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

Hey El Aurens!

This is a VALID DISCUSSION entirely based on reason and with merit about something REAL that DOES affect the sim in a measurable way. It is as important, moreso really, as getting the appearance of any guage or cockpit item right. And this in a sim that makes a lot of its reputation over having realistic cockpits. I do not begin to suggest that there is any intentional error made originally, only that either the effect or the solution did not occur to the development team. This discussion is about what is wrong and ways to overcome it and is evolving as more and different people come to an understanding of the ideas. This method of working on ideas is how and why the net formed in the first place back when it was ARPANET and not internet at all -- a place for open discussion and cooperation that greatly increased team productivities through members not having to meet for discussion. If you don't like what is discussed then chew harder because it's just tough for you. If it was whine then I'd be calling it thin and sour whine, but it is not.


Neal

adlabs6
06-14-2003, 08:28 AM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
----THICK, it's weight was many pounds. It was bulletproof
----for some caliburs as far as I know. When you looked
----through the edge of this lexan angled as you have your
----sample, the refraction level was INCREDIBLY high,
-
-
- What pilot is looking through the EDGE of the glass
- windscreen? What are you all talking about?
-
- Is this the idea? I can understand this.
-
-
-
- ................./ / ...slant windscreen (or slant
- Revi whatever)
- ................/ /
- .............../ /
- bar....---->/ /
- ............./\/------> bar shifted down
- ............/ /
- .........../ /
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 06/14/03 03:06AM by LEXX_Luthor
-
- Message Edited on 06/14/03 03:09AM by
- LEXX_Luthor



You have the idea about right. In my previous post, I misused the word 'edge'. I mean 'side'.

I'll attempt to clear the confusion with a drawing I made:

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/Gunsight_No_refraction.gif


That sums up the complaint here in general, though my drawing is not in scale or proportion to the FW190.

IF it were possible to 'raytrace' through the armour glass IN THE GAME ENGINE, so that light rays were affected by their travel THROUGH the glass, a different situation would result. This photo shows how this would look simplified.

http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/glass1.jpg


The basic effect this 'refraction' would have on my drawing would be that the size of area '2', or the blocked view zone would be smaller (to the eye, dimensions would not change).

Making the game process these refractions would bog it down to a few seconds per frame. Faking this effect is possible by simply lowering the armour glass frame to simulate what is seen 'by eye'.

BUT! IF you get the change made to this plane, consider the consequenses! EVERY plane in the game would have to be remodeled on an 'estimation' of likely refraction! The debate on the issue would be vastly worse than what is being seen here.

Oleg is right to leave well enough alone. The game was not designed from the outset to include compensation for refraction, and changing now is impossible.


<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
06-14-2003, 08:30 AM
StG77_Fennec wrote:
- To illustrate that further, I made a rough copy of
- the diagram in 3D Studio Max.
-
http://geocities.com/fennec50/ref.txt
-
- On the right you see what it would look like with no
- glass in it. On the left you see what it looks like
- with lexan in it (which I'm assuming has a similar
- IOR to the glass they used historically). The
- image on the right looks roughly like what you see
- in FB, the image on the left looks like it does in
- RL photographs. Refraction makes a very large
- difference.
-
- I wish this would be modelled, even if only in a
- simplified fashion (ie. just make the darn bar
- thinner til it looks realistic). I think realism is
- more important that the imaginary ignominy of having
- to do a refraction fake.

Good job, the darn bar AND the vertical struts thinner,
it's the better way /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 09:12 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
-
- HomeboyWu wrote:
-- Actually how much "thinner" the bars will be viewed
-- through glass is the same. If the index of
-- refraction of the glass is 4/3 then all bars viewed
-- through the glass will have 3/4 the original
-- thickness. Also the glass will have 3/4 the original
-- thickness, too.
-
- The bar we see is a flange that covers the lower
- part of the front of the glass on the outside.
- Anything from the front of the glass will appear
- more or less true to height on the back, only appear
- to be shifted down. So, no the bar itself will not
- be thinner unless you count the part of the bar that
- is the frame under the edge of the glass which will
- appear shorter as anything along that edge including
- the edge itself appear shorter/thinner.

Well, when I said "bar" I was referring to "the part of the bar that is the frame under the edge of the glass" like you said, which gets shorter due to refraction. Perhaps people should define clearly what "bar" means to prevent misunderstanding. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Other than that I agree with all you said.

-- Modelling refraction by transforming 3d models is a
-- viable way. While not as accurate as the mirror
-- method I stated, it takes far less computing power.
-- BUT the transformation should exetend to all parts
-- of the 3d models that can be seen through the glass.
-- See pic below.
--
-- That means the external model should be modified in
-- addition to the internal model. If not, it will
-- still be viable, even less accurate, though.
-
- I don't agree for 2 simple reasons.
-
- 1) It would definitely change the outside
- appearances of the models unacceptably, small though
- the changes are in measurement.

No, I don't like it either. That's why I proposed the "mirror" method. Still, 2 versions of ext. model can be made. One (modified) is supposed to be viewed from inside, another (original) from outside. However, I hate this idea 'coz it's way too much work.

- 2) It would require a massive amount of work in the
- 3D models and every skin for those.
-

Like I said, I don't like it, either.

- Other than that, yes from the inside view a lowering
- of all up front would be more correct. The lowering
- would not be just a parallel drop though. A very
- slight angling down of the entire nose would also be
- required as effectively the view is raised... and I
- do mean VERY slight.

Angling down? That's not gonna happen if the glass is FLAT WITH UNIFORM THICKNESS.

- Yes, if the bar only is lowered then the view over
- the nose from inside MAY still not be correct, but
- it will be more correct than it has been so far in
- an effective direction. Your picture does say very
- much.
-
- Yah?????????????????
-

Yes, thanks.

- I have had a thought about models seen from inside
- and outside and I believe that perhaps since the
- skins are seen from outside (please correct me if
- I'm wrong, I am guessing) then maybe the skins can
- show the bar from the outside without having it
- blocked from the inside... so realism from inside
- and outside would both be served.
-

You mean the textures can be seen from outside but not inside? This may very probably be the case. Then I think it'll work, too.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 09:28 AM
HomeboyWu,

Nice to see someone has a cut away of the 190 with
a pilot's head in it. This shows the pilot's head
about 40cm from the sight, as calculated on the other
blueprints, not 20cm as some where suggested.

The effect of refraction is to lift the sight line
higher then it would have been without refraction
when it leaves the aircraft. This might have the
effect of reducing the apparent size of the retaining
bar at the bottom of the armour glass.

What it _won't_ do is create the mythical 5.35 degrees
visibility downwards. The rays before and after the
armour glass are parallel, and to achieve a 5.35
degree visibility, your head would have to be in
positions that it would be hard to get your head
to inside the canopy, or alternatively, would be a
position that would prevent you looking through the sight.

From the pilot's position, the limiting factor for
visibility downwards would become the nose and its
bumps, rather than any retaining bar, but given the
pilot's position, and the requirement to see through
the sight, you are still talking around 2 to 3 degrees
maximum downwards visibility (I measure it at 2
in HomeboyWu's diagram) including the effect of
refraction.

So it may make the view out the front of the cockpit
look slightly different, but it's not going to improve
visibility very much, if at all.

I note that Janes WW2F and Warbirds III show the save
view of the Revi being partially obscured by the armour
retaining bar.

With regard to the design including refraction, as
conceived by Kurt Tank, this also presumes that the
armour glass as fitted in combat aircraft was that
considered at the design stage,and that Tank didn't
forget a detail (as details have been forgotten on
many a WW2 aircraft).



Message Edited on 06/14/0308:31AM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 10:16 AM
Good morning all:

1. Please keep this civilised. If you are tired of this matter or hate us or whatever, go to the bar and forget about us. Don't get in involved,it is not your business.

2. Please remember the 3D cockpit is a separate model that hides external parts when viewed from the pilot POV. That means, the cowling and the fusellage may be swaped by another 3D model that has nothing to do with the external. If you are unsure how the 3D works, don't jump into conclusions.

3. Due to pilot position, in the 190 one will hardly see the nose of the aircraft from pilot POV. So, why re-model it due to refraction? Only the frame of the armor glass would need to be reduced. Maybe I could look at the 190 cockpit and see the posivilities.

4. This refraction will NOT have to be taken into account on many planes, for the fact that most planes in FB have a plexiglas curved glass. Look at all the planes on the game: P-39, P-40, LaGG, Hurricane, Yak1/3, Mig, I-16/153, etc. they all have curved windscreens. This means refraction is not such an issue, and need not a change. (at any rate, deformation due to curved glass is the more important issue for this planes, not refraction) And as you will see, the frame thickness is tiny compared to Yak9, LA5 or FW190. Even the P-47 with flat armored windscreen has a very thin frame (front).

5. This really is clearly needed on the 190, and also the Yak9 series and La5. This three planes would need some 3D tweaking, but I think they deserve the revision, and like it is said, the LW has 2 plane choices, so they should at least be competent and revise them with accounts that have been given.

I will be back with more, and maybe some 3D as Fennec showed. I am waiting for Oleg to get better and get back to the office to pass him the info, if it is concluded that it is an issue. Until then, lets just think about it as civil as possible, and with contributions, not silly arguments. Maybe someone has access to armored glass?



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

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 10:18 AM
Thks all for your work...

I think that the only solution is reducing ..front barre ..

but it is only my opinion of course ..

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

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

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 01:09 PM
@StG77_Fennec: could you put an object into the line of targeting outside the glas?

I always thought the FW190 pilots in IL2 are looking down, I think this is also because of missing refraction

we should sort out two effects of refraction

1. the outside frames of the window look thinner
(Fennec showed this very well)

I think this is might be easy to simulate by changing the cockpit modell


2. the direction of view changes
light that comes from an target will change it's direction at the glas slightly down, this means the pilot had to look slightly upward to aim (of course the Revis where adjusted acordingly).

it could be simulated by rotating the cockpit modell (don't know if this is possible),
it would create an minimal error at the side and back view, but I don't think they are as critical


both changes together would heavily improve the 190 forward view.

quiet_man

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 01:18 PM
xanty wrote:

- If you are unsure how the
- 3D works, don't jump into conclusions.



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

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 01:45 PM
Found this refraction applet at:
http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/refraction.htm

On the FW with an 25 degree inclined glass of 60mm thickness and refraction index of 1.61, the offset of the line of sight is 36.5mm.

A 109 with 50 degree inclination and same thickness has 18mm offset.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:09 PM
i would be surprised if refraction was an accessable option
within the next 3yrs,if that..

so moving a few vertices seems by far the most sensible/economical answer,
if anything gets within 2mtrs of the front of theselimited few A/C that this applies to,i doubt anyone will be looking out for refraction effects(more likely looking for the refly button)



<img src=http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW/FW190-D9-29_small.jpg>
"yeah whatever"

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:13 PM
xanty wrote:
- Good morning all:
-
- 1. Please keep this civilised. If you are tired of
- this matter or hate us or whatever, go to the bar
- and forget about us. Don't get in involved,it is not
- your business.
-
- 2. Please remember the 3D cockpit is a separate
- model that hides external parts when viewed from the
- pilot POV. That means, the cowling and the fusellage
- may be swaped by another 3D model that has nothing
- to do with the external. If you are unsure how the
- 3D works, don't jump into conclusions.
-
- 3. Due to pilot position, in the 190 one will hardly
- see the nose of the aircraft from pilot POV. So, why
- re-model it due to refraction? Only the frame of the
- armor glass would need to be reduced. Maybe I could
- look at the 190 cockpit and see the posivilities.
-
- 4. This refraction will NOT have to be taken into
- account on many planes, for the fact that most
- planes in FB have a plexiglas curved glass. Look at
- all the planes on the game: P-39, P-40, LaGG,
- Hurricane, Yak1/3, Mig, I-16/153, etc. they all have
- curved windscreens. This means refraction is not
- such an issue, and need not a change. (at any rate,
- deformation due to curved glass is the more
- important issue for this planes, not refraction)
- And as you will see, the frame thickness is tiny
- compared to Yak9, LA5 or FW190. Even the P-47 with
- flat armored windscreen has a very thin frame
- (front).
-
- 5. This really is clearly needed on the 190, and
- also the Yak9 series and La5. This three planes
- would need some 3D tweaking, but I think they
- deserve the revision, and like it is said, the LW
- has 2 plane choices, so they should at least be
- competent and revise them with accounts that have
- been given.
-
- I will be back with more, and maybe some 3D as
- Fennec showed. I am waiting for Oleg to get better
- and get back to the office to pass him the info, if
- it is concluded that it is an issue. Until then,
- lets just think about it as civil as possible, and
- with contributions, not silly arguments. Maybe
- someone has access to armored glass?
-
-
-
-
- <img
- src=http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/sig02.
- gif>

Good stuff Xanty.

When Oleg gets back then privately e-mail him with this stuff Xanty. I get the feeling that this thread will degenerate into the usuall ORR flame fest soon.

This sounds like a good solution to the problems with the 190. Oleg should listen to you with your record of support for FB. I'm not sure this thread will achieve anything while Oleg is away apart from attracting the wrong sort of attention, if you get what I mean.

Good luck in your discussions with Oleg.

MOG

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:55 PM
Thank you adlabs6 !!!

I *may* have mixed up your use of "edge" and the way Xanty insists on taking photos through the edge of glass. While Xanty's edges are sexy, they distract from the idea we are trying to see. Yes? No? I dunno. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I hope they send Oleg the kind of photos an engineer would use...boring, dull, bland, but with pictured information needed to be convincing. I mean, I can't see what you guys are talking about in the current photos. But I know I should see a bar or some other object being shifted down. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

PS:: Now, how does windscreen make canopy struts appear thinner?

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:16 PM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- Thank you adlabs6 !!!
-
- I *may* have mixed up your use of "edge" and the way
- Xanty insists on taking photos through the edge of
- glass. While Xanty's edges are sexy, they distract
- from the idea we are trying to see. Yes? No? I
- dunno.
-
- I hope they send Oleg the kind of photos an engineer
- would use...boring, dull, bland, but with pictured
- information needed to be convincing. I mean, I can't
- see what you guys are talking about in the current
- photos. But I know I should see a bar or some other
- object being shifted down. -
- PS:: Now, how does windscreen make canopy struts
- appear thinner?



Look at the edge of the glass, note how thick it is. Now look thrugh the glass to the end and it looks 1/3 as thick. The glass has the same effect on the windscreen sides where you look through it to see them. Obviously the part ofthe struts before the glass wont be altered, just the section that mounts the glass.

Does that help?

MOG



Message Edited on 06/14/0304:19PM by Mogster

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:32 PM
Xanty, thats great that your volunteering to do all of the aircraft that would be affected by glass refraction (I do think it is more than the 190, Yak9 and La5 that will need work, but I'm no expert). If you have all of your 'ducks in a row' as we say in America when Oleg gets better, maybe he will allow you to adjust the cockpits. Would it be a good idea to request assistance from a few of the 'know-it-alls' around here to get all of the armour glass thickness, angles and refraction indexes (for example as rg500 stated)?

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 06:40 PM
rg500 wrote:


Found this refraction applet at:
http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/refraction.htm

On the FW with an 25 degree inclined glass of 60mm thickness and refraction index of 1.61, the offset of the line of sight is 36.5mm.

A 109 with 50 degree inclination and same thickness has 18mm offset.



Good info to put a fine point on why the 190 is significantly more effected, compared to other planes with less angle to the glass.


Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 12:16 AM
deserves a little bump.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 07:32 AM
HomeboyWu wrote:
- WWMaxGunz wrote:
--
-- HomeboyWu wrote:
--- Actually how much "thinner" the bars will be viewed

==Snip==

-- Other than that, yes from the inside view a lowering
-- of all up front would be more correct. The lowering
-- would not be just a parallel drop though. A very
-- slight angling down of the entire nose would also be
-- required as effectively the view is raised... and I
-- do mean VERY slight.
-
- Angling down? That's not gonna happen if the glass
- is FLAT WITH UNIFORM THICKNESS.

True, but the angle to the glass from the POV eye changes and that is the origin of whatever slight distortion is inherent in viewing through flat glass. the effect will always be more noticeable the closer the eye is to the glass and the wider the field of view is. Consider how close the sight is to the front window that it can't be raised much at all because it would hit the window in Olegs drawing. With the front glass tilted so much the POV angle will have farther to go to reach the glass at the bottom of the view than in the middle so will actually be farther down on the glass, the angle will be that much tighter so get more refraction than in the middle. Eyeglasses are curved on the inside surfaces to keep that surface at constant distance from the eye just because to nullify such distortive effects.

=== Snip ===

-- I have had a thought about models seen from inside
-- and outside and I believe that perhaps since the
-- skins are seen from outside (please correct me if
-- I'm wrong, I am guessing) then maybe the skins can
-- show the bar from the outside without having it
-- blocked from the inside... so realism from inside
-- and outside would both be served.
--
-
- You mean the textures can be seen from outside but
- not inside? This may very probably be the case. Then
- I think it'll work, too.

This is where I have doubts because we can see the wings with textures from the inside. That is why I wonder about models from inside and out -- things like seeing the pilot from outside but not inside and from outside for sure the polys inside are not all being rendered because the framerate hit, so there must be some differences that Xanty and the other 3D model makers know of.

How many planes have thick enough glass tilted far enough to the viewer to be affected in such a way? How many have this right in front of the gunsight? Perhaps the P47 with the strut in the middle cockpit?
Lowering the bar only is not a huge change affecting 80 planes. If all FW190's use the same cockpit and the cockpit elements are viewed from inside only then only 1 change would cover them ALL. Otherwise it would require changing a handful of 3D lines on quite a few models but less than 10. A very real request but far less than major remakes. Perhaps some day, maybe if some of the model makers decide they would and Oleg permits........ Please Nobody Demand This! It Would Kill All Chance, Which Is Slim Anyway!


Neal

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 01:37 PM
Hi there, I have been changing emails with these people

http://www.flugwerk.de/

I asked em about the metal bar and reflection in FW190 and this is what I was answered. I think they are realible source after all these guys build WWII planes.


Dear Tomas,

the visible "bar" is not a metallic part, but ( as you suspected ) the reflex of the edge of the bullet-proof windscreen...

The Revi sits fairly low, but in "real life" the field of view through the Revi-shield is not obstructed. Once we have gotten rid of the test-instrumentation that occupies the space of the Revi, we will mount a gunsight and show these pictures on the net. I am getting the same questions in dozens per month, ever since the new PC simulator-program was launched and soemone needs to get the word to the simulator fans, as I cannot answer each inquiry...

Best regards,

Claus


ps I mailed him this picture:

http://www.turixline.fi/legionkondor/pictures/revi_bar





Message Edited on 06/15/0302:43PM by alarmer

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:09 PM
..that's right..
have a look with 3DAnalyze v2.16a in wireframe mode + everyone can see some more problems in the geometric
based design...(posted by GateCrasher866/

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvsld&tpage=9



alarmer wrote:
- Hi there, I have been changing emails with these
- people
-
- http://www.flugwerk.de/
-
-
- I asked em about the metal bar and reflection in
- FW190 and this is what I was answered. I think they
- are realible source after all these guys build WWII
- planes.
-
-
- Dear Tomas,
-
-
- the visible "bar" is not a metallic part, but ( as
- you suspected ) the reflex of the edge of the
- bullet-proof windscreen...
-
- The Revi sits fairly low, but in "real life" the
- field of view through the Revi-shield is not
- obstructed. Once we have gotten rid of the
- test-instrumentation that occupies the space of the
- Revi, we will mount a gunsight and show these
- pictures on the net. I am getting the same questions
- in dozens per month, ever since the new PC
- simulator-program was launched and soemone needs to
- get the word to the simulator fans, as I cannot
- answer each inquiry...
-
-
- Best regards,
-
-
- Claus
-
-
- ps I mailed him this picture:
-
- <img
- src="http://www.turixline.fi/legionkondor/pictures
- /revi_bar">
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 06/15/03 02:43PM by alarmer

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:52 PM
xanty wrote:
- Good morning all:
-
=== Snip ===

- 2. Please remember the 3D cockpit is a separate
- model that hides external parts when viewed from the
- pilot POV. That means, the cowling and the fusellage
- may be swaped by another 3D model that has nothing
- to do with the external. If you are unsure how the
- 3D works, don't jump into conclusions.

So it is possible to have full accurate view from inside and outside. If it all comes down to choosing one compromise over another then choice 3 is no compromise needed if all the extra work is done.

- 3. Due to pilot position, in the 190 one will hardly
- see the nose of the aircraft from pilot POV. So, why
- re-model it due to refraction? Only the frame of the
- armor glass would need to be reduced. Maybe I could
- look at the 190 cockpit and see the posivilities.

If it can't be seen then there is no need, yes!

- 4. This refraction will NOT have to be taken into
- account on many planes, for the fact that most
- planes in FB have a plexiglas curved glass. Look at
- all the planes on the game: P-39, P-40, LaGG,
- Hurricane, Yak1/3, Mig, I-16/153, etc. they all have
- curved windscreens. This means refraction is not
- such an issue, and need not a change. (at any rate,
- deformation due to curved glass is the more
- important issue for this planes, not refraction)
- And as you will see, the frame thickness is tiny
- compared to Yak9, LA5 or FW190. Even the P-47 with
- flat armored windscreen has a very thin frame
- (front).

Curved glass distortion occurs if it is badly done or the pilot view is from a place where one part of the glass is closer to the eyes than another.

- 5. This really is clearly needed on the 190, and
- also the Yak9 series and La5. This three planes
- would need some 3D tweaking, but I think they
- deserve the revision, and like it is said, the LW
- has 2 plane choices, so they should at least be
- competent and revise them with accounts that have
- been given.
-
- I will be back with more, and maybe some 3D as
- Fennec showed. I am waiting for Oleg to get better
- and get back to the office to pass him the info, if
- it is concluded that it is an issue. Until then,
- lets just think about it as civil as possible, and
- with contributions, not silly arguments. Maybe
- someone has access to armored glass?

No real need to get the armor glass simply because in the FW blueprints with the pilot head and sight lines, the path of refraction is shown clearly so the angle can be measured and the index back-calculated. It is needed to figure out how much refractive effect there should be at the sides due to the angle of view from the pilot. But the data is there and anyway, modern armor glass is not the same as WWII armor glass and German WWII armor glass would vary from British, American or Soviet armor glass.

I really like the post above questioning Kurt Tanks ability to use refraction in the design when the drawings clearly SHOW the refraction. What does it take?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 04:00 PM
hi,
+ here a pic again that shows:
the bar as a construction part of the windscreen + it doesn't obstruct pilot's + the gunsightview through the revi (16b)

overmodelling the small netalic part of the windscreen, the reflexion problem of the big screen + the hight of the revi are main problems (re to wireframe mode) of this wrong design in the cockpitview of FW 190.

http://www.fw190.hobbyvista.com/Norwayfront.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 10:00 PM
The camera is a good bit down from the widshield and yet you can still see the whole lower curve of the Revi and even some below.

It MUST be a fake, right? (j/k!)


Neal

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 10:19 PM
Yep I agree...

I mean if it was like this the whole dang thing should be seen from outside the plane too. It is just wrong.

If you read above the flugwerk peoples oppinion about the situation you find they agree with most of us. From sighting view the revi was NOT obscured.

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 02:00 PM
*BUMP* - Good post and no real flames yet, at last message gets through /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Nice work guys /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

JG5_UnKle

"Know and use all the capabilities of your airplane. If you don't sooner or later, somebody who does, will kick your ***"


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 02:46 PM
GREAT POST! Lufthwhinners were right!

Really, THANKS YOU.

http://asakiyumemishi.com/fw190B.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 02:56 PM
Fw MUST rule. Good engineering stuff Xanty.

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

"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
06-16-2003, 04:32 PM
Great Post i hope ... Constructor will be believe ..

Poor TANK ... (By the way his father was a Railway Worker ...Tank Hans Jozef 1878-1943 loooll)

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

Cdt Groupe Jabo



Message Edited on 06/16/0303:34PM by Jabo_Walter

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 09:44 PM
Important issue.. Definetly deserves Olegs reply.

bump

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 02:24 AM
http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=251774

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

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

Mark Twain

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 06:00 PM
hi,
+ here the analyze of the 'reference design' of O.M.
(RogerHawk) can't post at moment(no webspace)
the pic was worked out with more gamma points..

Now some tomatoes from the eyes of some antiwhiners fall down..hehe

http://forumsbb.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=de_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zvdoj&tpage=4&direction=0

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 11:00 PM
I believe the refraction thing does not improve things over what is modeled in FB. I assume both planes of the armored glass are parallel.

The refraction simply makes the "bar" look thinner, but the FOV is not improved, as everything seen through the glass is "shifted" by the refraction.

So what is hidden by the bar, should simply hidden by the refracted image of the bar. It appears that the bar is thinner, but the FOV is just the same.

I am pretty sure that the line of sight is simply shifted by the armored glass and remains parallel to original line of sight, unless the armored glass has non parallel planes.

So I think if you "simply" make the "bar" thinner, you shall improve the FOV beyond reality.

Can someone draw me a picture showing where my reasoning is false ? It does not imply I think poeple here are liar, it's just my knowledge of optics is a little rusty...

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://gc3.normandie.niemen.free.fr/images/ezboard/iconeperso/nn.gif'; 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>
&lt;script>a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor="790000"; var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-3].bgColor = "FFFFFF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "2D3829";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "2D3829";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "790000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "FFEB00";}</script><table width="100%" height="100" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><td width="100" height="100">http://gc3.normandie.niemen.free.fr/images/ezboard/iconeperso/tym.jpg (http://www.normandieniemen.firstream.net/pilotes/pilote.php?indicatif=Tym)</td><td align="center"><font size="5">NN Tym

Normandie-Niemen virtuel</font> (http://gc3.normandie.niemen.free.fr)</td><td width="262">http://gc3.normandie.niemen.free.fr/images/ezboard/signatures/tym_ubi.jpg (http://gc3.normandie.niemen.free.fr)</td></table>

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 11:51 PM
I am going to try to get good pictures of this. As far as I can observe, from 2 meters onwards, the "sifted down" effect is corrected and nothing seems to be out of place at all. I would say if a plane is 15 mters away or more, the image will be in the exact place as if there was no glass, but the thick edges would show smaller. The closer the object the stronger the refraction.

If you look closer to the last glass image i made originally, the computer behind shows no deformation/shifting place while looking through it.

Soon, more pictures. I am still investigating.

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

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 12:40 AM
And a nice picture from
James_Gang for the "nosedown attitude" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 12:43 AM
NN_Tym wrote:
- I believe the refraction thing does not improve
- things over what is modeled in FB. I assume both
- planes of the armored glass are parallel.
-
- The refraction simply makes the "bar" look thinner,
- but the FOV is not improved, as everything seen
- through the glass is "shifted" by the refraction.
-
- So what is hidden by the bar, should simply hidden
- by the refracted image of the bar. It appears that
- the bar is thinner, but the FOV is just the same.
-
- I am pretty sure that the line of sight is simply
- shifted by the armored glass and remains parallel to
- original line of sight, unless the armored glass has
- non parallel planes.
-
- So I think if you "simply" make the "bar" thinner,
- you shall improve the FOV beyond reality.
-
- Can someone draw me a picture showing where my
- reasoning is false ? It does not imply I think
- poeple here are liar, it's just my knowledge of
- optics is a little rusty...

The line of sight is shifted upwards. This means that in effect you are higher looking down. This moves the obstruction of the nosed down by something like 1.2 to 1.5 degrees when working out the geometry down the nose (I did this about 9 months ago, don't have my calcs handy.) No test report I've seen mentions view being blocked by this bar, instead folks looked down the nose... See the post earlier in the thread about the folks building replicas stating the bar isn't visible.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:01 AM
It seems there is a significant amount of confusion regarding the issue of refraction.


There are 2 separate effects;

1) Refraction thru parallel surfaces, ie) the armor glass.

2) refraction thru the edge, nonparallel surfaces.



#1 causes an image shift downward, this carries out to infinity and will cause the nose ofthe aircraft to shift lower, and targets will shift lower relative to the gunsight.

#2 causes the edges of the plate glass to appear dramatically thinner.


Now practically speaking #2 would seem to effect the view out of the cockpit in a major way in a few planes.

This effect is static, and would only require a modification of the 3D model cockpit in a few planes.

Whereas effect #1 would be dynamic, and I suspect although could be approximated it probably is best left for development in the next sim.

Hope this helps a bit. By the way it doesnt require very thick glass to see these things for yourself, give it a try.


Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:32 AM
You did not tell if the field of view would be wider with the refraction.

It may seem wider, as the frame of the armored glass appears thinner. But IS IT wider ?

If the refraction does not widen the field of view, then Oleg Maddox is simply right.

In other words. Is an object obstructed by the "bar" and without the armored glass on, visible with the thick glass on ?

I don't think so. Can someone prove me wrong with a drawing that will display the path of light for this kind of object ?

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://gc3.normandie.niemen.free.fr/images/ezboard/iconeperso/nn.gif'; 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>
&lt;script>a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor="790000"; var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-3].bgColor = "FFFFFF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "2D3829";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "2D3829";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "790000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "FFEB00";}</script><table width="100%" height="100" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><td width="100" height="100">http://gc3.normandie.niemen.free.fr/images/ezboard/iconeperso/tym.jpg (http://www.normandieniemen.firstream.net/pilotes/pilote.php?indicatif=Tym)</td><td align="center"><font size="5">NN Tym

Normandie-Niemen virtuel</font> (http://gc3.normandie.niemen.free.fr)</td><td width="262">http://gc3.normandie.niemen.free.fr/images/ezboard/signatures/tym_ubi.jpg (http://gc3.normandie.niemen.free.fr)</td></table>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 07:00 AM
From the Revi, the field of view downwards is 3 degrees.

ref. Fw190A-8 manual. D.(Luft)T.2190 A-8




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 09:26 AM
Milo;

In IL2/FB with the circle in the revi, how far away is a fighter when the wings are as wide as the circle and you are on his 6?

That would be the range where the circle is 10m and in the sim it is either 100m or 200m but I forget. (I haven't played in 2 months, waiting for the patch and I forget.)

If the range is 200m the the circle is about 2.86 degrees wide, the radius is about 1.43 degrees and perhaps we do not have 4 degrees or even 3 degrees down to the bar.


Neal




Message Edited on 06/19/0304:30AM by WWMaxGunz

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 12:13 PM
hi,
+ here the so called 'reference pic ' from O.M.
analyzed + with more more gamma level 2.5-3...
thx.. to RogerHawk

http://520082849836-0000.bei.t-online.de/Bilder/proof_5.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 01:38 PM
the starfighter pic is VERY intresting,

look at the left side window, the green line Oleg drawed at the black frame inside the window where only reflections from the camera light!
you can only see the inside frame of the window!

someone knows if the outside frame of the 190 windows where smaller than the inside?
together with refraction this would make them nearly vanish.

thats the only explenation I have for this photo.

if the black frames in forward window are also reflections,
then the hole FW190 cockpit frames would be wrong!



quiet_man

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 01:58 PM
Wolfstriked wrote:
- Guys its not refraction its the view moves up when
- hitting Shift/F1.Why is this not being talked about
- I dont know.
-
- Look at the bar in no/shift mode,its not in the
- way.then shift/F1 and the view moves up and bar
- moves into revie view.Now if Oleg were to give us a
- lower view in shifted mode....then the crosshair is
- to low in revi.Look where crosshair is when in
- unshifted mode....its not centered in revi!!
-
-
- *****************THIS IS WHY HE WONT/CANT FIX IT.The
- guns would have to point more up to fire into
- crosshairs.Its a problem with the original design of
- the cockpit/exterior views and how they work
- together.
-
- He has stated that modeleing refration is too cpu
- intensive...give that one up already....go instead
- with the cutout of the graphic for the bar
- instead...I see this as doable but will Oleg
- agree???
-


Hmmmmmm........

Ill have a look @ that good point if its a fact

<CENTER> http://home.mchsi.com/~zmarinaro1969/shin1.jpg </center>

<Center><div style="width:700;colorhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gifurple;font-size:14pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=black,strength=11)"><Center>
I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold
I am alive forevermore.
I am the Alpha and the Omega
the Begining and the End.</div> <center>

<center><FONT COLOR="white">ӚFJ M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/i]</FONT>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:10 PM
If this picture is the official's one i understand than Oleg mistake ...
but what can we do .. nothing ... Hope in God ... and a mystic revalation ... or a Cockpit washing in museum ...

Kiss to all my friends ...

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

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

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:17 PM
Dont let up now guys the Ammount of Evidince is piling up fast

Please Oleg when your well from your surgery consider all these new facts especialy the wireframe stuff & the letter from the people building the fw

thanks

<CENTER> http://home.mchsi.com/~zmarinaro1969/shin1.jpg </center>

<Center><div style="width:700;colorhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gifurple;font-size:14pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=black,strength=11)"><Center>
I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold
I am alive forevermore.
I am the Alpha and the Omega
the Begining and the End.</div> <center>

<center><FONT COLOR="white">ӚFJ M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/i]</FONT>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 08:06 PM
NN_Tym wrote:
- You did not tell if the field of view would be wider
- with the refraction.
-
- It may seem wider, as the frame of the armored glass
- appears thinner. But IS IT wider ?
-



No, the actual field of view is not wider than the glass itself. The most important effect is in the inferior shift of the image.

This would create a significant view change relative to the gunsight.

I've created a simulated piece of armor glass by placing 2 prisms back to back, apex to base. This forms a 4cm. thickness acrylic piece, with parallel sides.

The effect on the image is large, shifting everything inferiorly, side to side field of view is not changed, but as expected the sides look very thin.

Now, I would think this shift in image inferiorly would have a dramatic effect on the view thru the gunsight, creating a large degree of clearence below the gunsight.

Cant anyone get into a 190 and look thru the gunsight?
How would this effect aiming at ground targets?

Widgeon