PDA

View Full Version : FW-190 cockpit shots?



VonGrantoven
10-30-2007, 10:46 PM
Anyone have any that show the canopy framing to the front?
I find the heavy framing to be a major problem in flying these birds. Bogey's passing through the canopy lines often seem to disappear as if by magic!
Is this an accurate reflection of the real plane?
Reports I have read seem to give the Focke-Wulfs good ratings for visability.

Cajun76
10-31-2007, 12:54 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/munching_out.gif

DKoor
10-31-2007, 01:22 AM
FW-190A5
FW-190D9
TA-152H1
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/a5_d9_h1.gif

FSX 190 gunsite
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fsx_190dgunsite.jpg

FW-190A4 vs RL FW-190A4
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/olega4_vs_rla4.gif

JG52Uther
10-31-2007, 02:08 AM
This could get ugly real quick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ratsack
10-31-2007, 02:12 AM
Why? We know this is not going to be changed. Why does discussion of it have to be ugly?


...oh yeah, this is the Zoo, after all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Ratsack

F19_Orheim
10-31-2007, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by JG52Uther:
This could get ugly real quick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

give him a break mate, looks like he is pretty new and missed out on that whole 190 debacle.. it's been a dead horse for years now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VonGrantoven
10-31-2007, 02:35 AM
Thanks DKoor!
Great shot of the A4 windscreen. Just what I was looking for.

I superimposed your pics of the game A4 over the real one and highlighted the canopy frame lines to guve a clearer comparison.
(RL is the base layer, gameA4 at 40% opacity with frame highlight overlay)

Happy to see that the overall shape is pretty much spot on, but as I suspected, the frame of the game 190 appears to be 20-30% thicker than the actual one.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff292/VonGrantoven/olega4_vs_rla4-supermpsd.jpg

DKoor
10-31-2007, 02:54 AM
Not a prob........
Nice pit shot taken from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qayREUJe65w

That machine from I./JG54 clearly had a different type of gunsight fitted in comparison to the in game A4.

Farran1966
10-31-2007, 04:14 AM
Hello,

I was luck enough to sit in a freshly restored A5 last year and I have to say that the visibility looked pretty good to me, better than in the game.

Of course in the real aircraft the pilots head movement is not restricted as it is in the game
which is going to help.

I must add that as I sat there moving the stick and pedals and looking around, it struck me how terrifying it most have been going to war in this thing.

VonGrantoven
10-31-2007, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Not a prob........
Nice pit shot taken from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qayREUJe65w


Nice vid, thanks.

RAF_Loke
10-31-2007, 04:23 AM
Same goes for the Spitfire and properly all planes.
I tried to sit in a Spitfire at Duxford in 2004, and simply because I was able to lean to the sides I could get a much better view ahead than simulated in the game.

Jutocsa
10-31-2007, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by VonGrantoven:
Thanks DKoor!
Great shot of the A4 windscreen. Just what I was looking for.

I superimposed your pics of the game A4 over the real one and highlighted the canopy frame lines to guve a clearer comparison.
(RL is the base layer, gameA4 at 40% opacity with frame highlight overlay)

Happy to see that the overall shape is pretty much spot on, but as I suspected, the frame of the game 190 appears to be 20-30% thicker than the actual one.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff292/VonGrantoven/olega4_vs_rla4-supermpsd.jpg

Not that Id like to put oil onto this old fire, but simply pasteing a screenshot from game over a photograph is FAR from being any accurate. Do you know the exact position of the camera in game and in the shot ? Do you think they are the same ? Also, do you think the photo's fov is a perfect match of that ingame shot ? Obviously not. Has anyone made proper camera matches with photographs and the ingame 190 cockpit model in 3D Studio ? Not that Id like to defend the bars - actually I couldnt care less about them - but id like to see proper proofs, not just two random pictures pasted on top of each other http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG52Uther
10-31-2007, 04:29 AM
I don't think the bar is the problem as such,more the pov of the pilot.

CUJO_1970
10-31-2007, 04:30 AM
Hello,

The year 2001 called, and want it's thread topic back http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DKoor
10-31-2007, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by Jutocsa:
but id like to see proper proofs, not just two random pictures pasted on top of each other http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif What more do you want..... notice the night & day difference in the gunsight shape.

MEGILE
10-31-2007, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by Jutocsa:

but id like to see proper proofs, not just two random pictures pasted on top of each other http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

VonGrantoven
10-31-2007, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jutocsa:

but id like to see proper proofs, not just two random pictures pasted on top of each other http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, me too.
I am definitely not making any claims for the consistency of camera or FOV. These no doubt they are off to some extent.
Based upon the decent alignment we do have though, I think we are probably in the ballpark, indicating that the in-game canopy frames are considerably thicker than the RL ones.

Not whining about it, and don't expect it to be changed. Just curious as to why what I was seeing in the game didnt jibe with what I had read.
Would definitely like to see some more pics if anyone has any.


Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Hello,

The year 2001 called, and want it's thread topic back http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Sorry,I wasn't here back then.
I ran a search and didn't find any pics on the forum to support the issue one way or the other. If you know of any, then posting them would be more appreciated than comments like this, though.

HuninMunin
10-31-2007, 05:33 AM
Don't take Cujos comment as offensive, mate - I'm shure he didn't mean to make fun of your question at all.
It's just that the 190s cockpit was SO overdiscussed in countless threads it makes the ongoing spitwhines pale in comparsion.
The 190s bar really is something that exist in the list of idioms of this board, really. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

K_Freddie
10-31-2007, 05:38 AM
You should try look out of a Spit pit... not much different than this. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Brain32
10-31-2007, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by Jutocsa:
Not that Id like to defend the bars - actually I couldnt care less about them - but id like to see proper proofs, not just two random pictures pasted on top of each other http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So I guess you registered in 2003 and didn't even lurk up until now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Seriously now if by any chance you are not intentionally trying to provoke CAT5 sh1tstorm do a search on the forum you will find A LOT more than - "just two random pictures pasted on top of each other" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HuninMunin
10-31-2007, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
You should try look out of a Spit pit... not much different than this. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And exactly theres the problem, ain't it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Jutocsa
10-31-2007, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:

So I guess you registered in 2003 and didn't even lurk up until now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Seriously now if by any chance you are not intentionally trying to provoke CAT5 sh1tstorm do a search on the forum you will find A LOT more than - "just two random pictures pasted on top of each other" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No need to search, like I said I dont mind the bars. They might be too thick, and Oleg can be wrong for all what I care http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifI just find it hilarious when two pictures are put on top of each other, regardless of basically anything, and then the results are considered as hard proof. Its just funny. And not getting involved in stupid arguements all the time isnt lurking :P http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DKoor
10-31-2007, 06:40 AM
Nobody I saw in this thread, including me, considers that pic as some kind of a hard proof.

However it is not a hard proof, it is a fact, that gunsight fitted in IL-2 FW-190A4 and I./JG54 captured one are different.
That much is not doubtful.

HuninMunin
10-31-2007, 06:44 AM
A thought just crossed my mind; we know that the bar is caused by the missing refraction of the armored windscreen - could this be the reason for the frames appearing broader ingame aswell?

DKoor
10-31-2007, 06:46 AM
I saw some SoW BoB Bf-109E shots........ it has much thinner pit framing compared to the IL-2 109E.....
I suppose the same is true for Spitfire too.

No41Sqn_Banks
10-31-2007, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
I saw some SoW BoB Bf-109E shots........ it has much thinner pit framing compared to the IL-2 109E.....
I suppose the same is true for Spitfire too.

The screenshots from SoW BoB show a Bf-109E-3. We have a Bf-109E-4 in Il-2:1946. Both planes had a different cockpit framing.

JG53Frankyboy
10-31-2007, 07:39 AM
actually its not possible to differ between E-3 and E-4 with just looking on the canopy.

i have seen even E-1s with the later Emil canopy.

DKoor
10-31-2007, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
I saw some SoW BoB Bf-109E shots........ it has much thinner pit framing compared to the IL-2 109E.....
I suppose the same is true for Spitfire too.

The screenshots from SoW BoB show a Bf-109E-3. We have a Bf-109E-4 in Il-2:1946. Both planes had a different cockpit framing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Point being....?

No41Sqn_Banks
10-31-2007, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
actually its not possible to differ between E-3 and E-4 with just looking on the canopy.

i have seen even E-1s with the later Emil canopy.

Maybe the old canopy was damaged and replaced.

But ok lets do some hairsplitting and say it differently http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Bf-109E in Il-2 has the square-cut canopy, the Bf-109E in Sow:BoB has the round canopy.

No41Sqn_Banks
10-31-2007, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
I saw some SoW BoB Bf-109E shots........ it has much thinner pit framing compared to the IL-2 109E.....
I suppose the same is true for Spitfire too.

The screenshots from SoW BoB show a Bf-109E-3. We have a Bf-109E-4 in Il-2:1946. Both planes had a different cockpit framing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Point being....? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point being that you did compare apples and oranges or to be more specific a square-cut canopy with a round canopy. And your conclusion was that oranges are thinner than apples, which I confirmed by stating they are different.

So actually I only wanted to emphasise that we are talking about apples and oranges.

But I have no idea how the lemon (Spitfire canopy) fits into that comparison http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

DKoor
10-31-2007, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
I saw some SoW BoB Bf-109E shots........ it has much thinner pit framing compared to the IL-2 109E.....
I suppose the same is true for Spitfire too.

The screenshots from SoW BoB show a Bf-109E-3. We have a Bf-109E-4 in Il-2:1946. Both planes had a different cockpit framing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Point being....? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point being that you did compare apples and oranges or to be more specific a square-cut canopy with a round canopy. And your conclusion was that oranges are thinner than apples, which I confirmed by stating they are different.

So actually I only wanted to emphasise that we are talking about apples and oranges.

But I have no idea how the lemon (Spitfire canopy) fits into that comparison http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know how else to say it....... doubt that this will work too, since I already tried, but here it is.

I wasn't talking about shape of cockpit.

I was talking about pit framing thickness.

You should get that much in the first place when I initially mentioned Spitfires.

Since you are interested in pit shape I googled some interested pages:
http://airwar.hihome.com/gwp/bf109/bf-109-2.htm

HuninMunin
10-31-2007, 09:11 AM
And your observation concerning pit framing thickness was correct because the screens you compare the Il-2 Emil against depict a cockpit that has thiner frames to begin with.

DKoor
10-31-2007, 09:18 AM
Roger that...........
I've been busy in the past few minutes... watched a few youtube interested links;

Ju-87B2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgIGWCcsO78)
Bf-109E3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osJvzXTwwIA)
He-111H2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny59blbRplA)
Spitfire I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JphWfh5gPYE)
Ju-88A1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFUYROgba-M)
Fiat Br.20 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ_k1kYN5DI)
Blenheim I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KLMVVSB-I4&NR=1)

VonGrantoven
10-31-2007, 11:41 AM
Found a clearer and better angled canopy shot.

Once again, the POV of the two images are not identical, and I suspect the viewpoint on the RL 190 is lower than it would be in real life. I believe they are similar enough to allow us to make a general comparison, however.

Images were lined up horizontally along the upper and lower limets of the armored glass and were not adjusted for width.

This gives a slightly different impression of the relative visibility, and here it actually appears that the glass are of in-game image is slightly larger.
Of note however, is the somewhat higher placement of the gunsight on the RL 190.

Overall though, based upon what I can tell from this, I would have to say the in-game image isn't too far off the actual view from the plane. http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff292/VonGrantoven/FW190-Screen.jpg

Boandlgramer
11-01-2007, 04:16 AM
Hello vonG

Here is my "own" 190 cockpit shot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
http://schreinerschmid-web.homepage.t-online.de/boandlkloa.jpg

All the best
Boandl

VonGrantoven
11-01-2007, 04:40 AM
Nice, especially the 'rich Corinthian leather' on the dashboard!
Where is it from?

JuHa-
11-01-2007, 04:48 AM
Originally posted by VonGrantoven:
identical, and I suspect the viewpoint on the RL 190 is lower than it would be in real life.

I tried to take the picture as close to the real POV as possible, but unfortunately I wasn't allowed to sit in the pit. Pic was taken with a mobile phone, with a shaking hand... Should have taken more from this angle, but somehow forgot.

WOLFMondo
11-01-2007, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by VonGrantoven:
Thanks DKoor!
Great shot of the A4 windscreen. Just what I was looking for.

I superimposed your pics of the game A4 over the real one and highlighted the canopy frame lines to guve a clearer comparison.
(RL is the base layer, gameA4 at 40% opacity with frame highlight overlay)

Happy to see that the overall shape is pretty much spot on, but as I suspected, the frame of the game 190 appears to be 20-30% thicker than the actual one.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff292/VonGrantoven/olega4_vs_rla4-supermpsd.jpg

I can't remember of the top of my head the revi version numbers but the A4 and A5 revi sight is the wrong type. They have same variant as the ones some of the 109's carried. This was pointed out eons ago but never corrected.

VonGrantoven
11-01-2007, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by JuHa-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VonGrantoven:
identical, and I suspect the viewpoint on the RL 190 is lower than it would be in real life.

I tried to take the picture as close to the real POV as possible, but unfortunately I wasn't allowed to sit in the pit. Pic was taken with a mobile phone, with a shaking hand... Should have taken more from this angle, but somehow forgot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry JuHa-, no disrespect intended. Its definitely the best shot I have seen!
I have never sat in a 190 so you would definitely know better than me the angle the pic was taken from. I just assumed that eye level would be roughly centered horizontally on the front screen. In this pic the midpoint looks not much more than slightly above the bar (very similar to the game viewpoint, actually) Would you say this was about right?

Where was the shot taken, btw?

If you have any more, especially around the pit, it would be great to see em!

JuHa-
11-01-2007, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by VonGrantoven:
Would you say this was about right?

Where was the shot taken, btw?

If you have any more, especially around the pit, it would be great to see em!

I hope I got the point within' +/-5cm, as I was on a ladder aside the plane,
and just made an assumption about the place of the pilot's head. The
museum is in Hannover, Germany. Visited the place about two years ago,
as it isn't so far from where I'm living. I can send the pics to those interested,
just send a PM with your email address.

DKoor
11-01-2007, 12:13 PM
I take you are talking about this pic guys;
http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff292/VonGrantoven/FW190-Screen.jpg

What is the type of that FW on the pic?

JuHa-
11-01-2007, 01:59 PM
They have an A8 at Hannover "gelbe 11" that has been put together from various wrecks and new parts.

Jens Nissen: "Focke-Wulf Fw 190 im Detail" from Motorbuch Verlag covers this plane quite well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DKoor
11-01-2007, 03:36 PM
Thanks.

Lurch1962
11-01-2007, 08:21 PM
DKoor and vonG,
Good work with the image comparisons!

DKoor,
Your overlap of video still and in-game shot is definitely a valid comparison. Why? Because the *angles* of the vertical frame elements are so similar. This strongly suggests that the points of view are also quite similar, and that we are indeed comparing the same variety of fruit.

The conclusion: the vertical bars are too thick in-game.

vonG,
Great to have a modern image as well. But I suspect your camera was positioned a bit too far back, (ASSUMING the game's 3-D model is reasonably correct as regards slope and positioning of the frame). This is suggested by the way the vertical bars in your photo are more parallel than those in-game. From the pilot's point of view, as he leans more and more forward, the apparent divergence of the vertical bars will increase due to both the slope of the forward screen and perspective effects. Moreover, this could also explain the small differences in the relative area of glazing-to-framing.

--Lurch--

JRJacobs
11-01-2007, 08:31 PM
Oh what the heck - I'll dig up some of my old stuff hehehe
taken from an FW-190D13 (Gelb 10) during restoration (pictures taken from the actual seat in the real plane)

Here is the frame without glass. notice the actual thickness
http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/wo_refraction.jpg

Here is the frame WITH glass in it. notice the APPARENT thickness
http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/D04PilotviewwToScale.JPG

So what we have is....
a plane created to engineering specifications
http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/F06w-wo_refraction.jpg

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/A01PilotviewCentered.JPG

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/B02PilotviewwFullUp.JPG

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/C03GlassSideView.JPG

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/DownAtRevi.jpg

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/E05wo_refraction.jpg

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/ForeLookAft.jpg

BaronUnderpants
11-02-2007, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by JRJacobs:
Oh what the heck - I'll dig up some of my old stuff hehehe
taken from an FW-190D13 (Gelb 10) during restoration (pictures taken from the actual seat in the real plane)

Here is the frame without glass. notice the actual thickness
http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/wo_refraction.jpg

Here is the frame WITH glass in it. notice the APPARENT thickness
http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/D04PilotviewwToScale.JPG

So what we have is....
a plane created to engineering specifications
http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/F06w-wo_refraction.jpg

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/A01PilotviewCentered.JPG

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/B02PilotviewwFullUp.JPG

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/C03GlassSideView.JPG

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/DownAtRevi.jpg

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/E05wo_refraction.jpg

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/ForeLookAft.jpg


The glass seem to add quite some thickness.

JRJacobs
11-02-2007, 04:04 PM
My last post on this because i truly am NOT trying to resurrect a closed subject from 2003

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

The 190 has TWICE as much refraction (makes the edges appear half as thick) as the 109 in real life but is the SAME in the game

so it the opposite of how you stated it


Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
The glass seem to add quite some thickness.

The glass seem to <span class="ev_code_RED">HIDE</span> quite some thickness

Choctaw111
11-02-2007, 08:18 PM
This didn't get to page 10 yet?

LW_lcarp
11-02-2007, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
I saw some SoW BoB Bf-109E shots........ it has much thinner pit framing compared to the IL-2 109E.....
I suppose the same is true for Spitfire too.

The screenshots from SoW BoB show a Bf-109E-3. We have a Bf-109E-4 in Il-2:1946. Both planes had a different cockpit framing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Point being....? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point being that you did compare apples and oranges or to be more specific a square-cut canopy with a round canopy. And your conclusion was that oranges are thinner than apples, which I confirmed by stating they are different.

So actually I only wanted to emphasise that we are talking about apples and oranges.

But I have no idea how the lemon (Spitfire canopy) fits into that comparison http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Spit pit
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v120/lcarp/IM000549.jpg

horseback
11-03-2007, 10:44 AM
I believe that the flaw in the 190's FOV comes from Oleg's cockpit standard, which appears to require that the crosshairs of the gunsight will ALWAYS be the center of the pilot's default forward line of sight.

It appears to me that in many aircraft of the period that either the pilot usually leaned forward and down to aim through his sights (as in the case of the 190, Spitfire or 109), or that the sights were actually mounted HIGHER than shown in the game's representations (as in the P-51 or P47).

As for the thickness of the windshield/canopy framing, much of that is due to the one-eyed (semiphotograhic) point of view on our screens, when stereoscopic vision (and the ability to move one's head up, down, and from side to side just a few inches) would have compensated for that apparent obstruction.

Has anyone noticed a difference in the apparent width of the 190's windshield framing when looking through the armored glass with the naked eye(s) as opposed to the single lens of a camera? Does the refraction still add to the apparent width of the frames?

Hopefully, the addition of the 6DOF feature will relieve some of this aggravation in SoW:BoB.

cheers

horseback

Daiichidoku
11-03-2007, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by VonGrantoven:
Nice, especially the 'rich Corinthian leather' on the dashboard!
Where is it from?

wiki:

according to one reference, Chrysler's "Corinthian" leather was mass produced in a plant in Newark, New Jersey (not Corinth).

Foo.bar
11-04-2007, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JRJacobs:
Oh what the heck - I'll dig up some of my old stuff hehehe
taken from an FW-190D13 (Gelb 10) during restoration (pictures taken from the actual seat in the real plane)

Here is the frame without glass. notice the actual thickness
http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/wo_refraction.jpg

Here is the frame WITH glass in it. notice the APPARENT thickness
http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/D04PilotviewwToScale.JPG

So what we have is....
a plane created to engineering specifications
http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/F06w-wo_refraction.jpg

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/A01PilotviewCentered.JPG

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/B02PilotviewwFullUp.JPG

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/C03GlassSideView.JPG

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/DownAtRevi.jpg

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/E05wo_refraction.jpg

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/ForeLookAft.jpg


The glass seem to add quite some thickness. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah!

Pirschjaeger
11-04-2007, 07:04 AM
I wish my shop looked like that.

Now that I think of it,...I wish I had a shop. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz

Bussard_1
11-04-2007, 06:25 PM
Picture of the 190 cockpit are available on the cd named here; http://cgi.ebay.com/Fw190A-6-R-8-Lulu-Comprehensive-Ref...ZphotoQQcmdZViewItem (http://cgi.ebay.com/Fw190A-6-R-8-Lulu-Comprehensive-Reference-CD_W0QQitemZ250143836453QQihZ015QQcategoryZ104000Q QtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem)
Many of these images used to be on Triplane.net.
Good value and a must have for the 190 nut.
Other than having purchased the disk I have no connection what so ever with either the seller or photographer.

Ratsack
11-05-2007, 08:45 AM
Great photos, all. Thanks for sharing, even if it'll never be changed in IL2. Let's hope this is right if there's ever a Fw 190 in a BoB add on.

cheers,
Ratsack