PDA

View Full Version : FW 190 New photos in color and b&w(updated on 10-04-03)with Revi 16 forward view.



Pages : [1] 2

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 11:39 PM
I truly enjoy this sim Oleg and Company - SALUTE!
Second, this is research and research only. Hopefully it can be of assistance to the IL-2/FB Team.

I am going to update all significant photos on this post as we progress through research.
I was going to post this in Cirx's thread but I decided that since it came from a different source that I should post it in a separate topic area. If any of these photos excluding my own have been shown previously then I apologize for the repetition.

I have attached a photo of the front view of the FW 190 with the cowling machine gun cover removed. This clearly shows that no panel bar should be in the way of the revi gunsite. I also attached a photo of the cowling cover in place to show that it would not hinder the view of the gunsight as well if it was attached. The Revi gunsight photo was taken from the following book:
Walk Around, Fockewulf FW 190A/F number 22
Squadron Signal Publications
The Revi sight photo was taken from page 26(Rio Hondo FW190)
The front cowling photo was from page 12


The photo with the mannequin was taken by myself at the San Antonio Texas Air Museum. I have been to the Rio Hondo, TX museum as well and have had the opportunity to sit in the cockpit of one of their Focke Wulfs.

http://images.snapfish.com/3387755923232%7Ffp8%3Enu%3D3232%3E44%3A%3E297%3E23 2344%3A388982ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/3387755923232%7Ffp8%3Enu%3D3232%3E44%3A%3E297%3E23 2344%3A388984ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/3387%3A%3A4%3B23232%7Ffp8%3Enu%3D3232%3E44%3B%3E5% 3C8%3E232344%3B6%3B96%3C%3Aot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/3387%3A%3C%3A323232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E2323%3D53%3C%3 D866%3D323253%3C7755%3A%3Cnu0mrj

http://images.snapfish.com/3387755923232%7Ffp8%3Enu%3D3232%3E44%3A%3E297%3E23 2344%3A388985ot1lsi


I also decided to add the MK 108 photos at the bottom as well. I love this sim by the way, I just wish that some of these issues could be addressed. Thanks Oleg and Company for that.

New photos added 10-2-03:

http://www.jg51.net/images/fw190pics/first190.jpg
Please note in this photo that the reflection on the outer bar area is the nuts and bolts. The lower bar area is the transparent reflected area.

http://images.snapfish.com/3387%3A72723232%7Ffp8%3Enu%3D3232%3E44%3B%3E3%3B9% 3E232344%3B4%3A%3A354ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/3387%3A72723232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E2323%3D53%3C%3D4%3 B%3B%3D323253%3C3%3C%3A53%3Bnu0mrj

http://www.jg51.net/images/fw190pics/finalproof1.jpg


http://www.jg51.net/images/fw190pics/finalproof1makings.jpg

http://images.snapfish.com/3388536%3B23232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2323%3D544%3D559%3D3 232544468%3B%3A6nu0mrj

http://images.snapfish.com/3388536%3B23232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2323%3D544%3D559%3D3 232544468764nu0mrj

http://images.snapfish.com/3388536%3B23232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2323%3D544%3D566%3D3 232544475933nu0mrj

http://images.snapfish.com/3388389523232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2323%3D543%3D86%3B%3D3 23254377%3A%3C89nu0mrj

PLEASE NOTICE ON CIRX'S PHOTO BELOW HOW MUCH HIGHER THE REVI 16 SITS WHEN IN PLACE.


Message Edited on 10/09/0304:37AM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 11:39 PM
I truly enjoy this sim Oleg and Company - SALUTE!
Second, this is research and research only. Hopefully it can be of assistance to the IL-2/FB Team.

I am going to update all significant photos on this post as we progress through research.
I was going to post this in Cirx's thread but I decided that since it came from a different source that I should post it in a separate topic area. If any of these photos excluding my own have been shown previously then I apologize for the repetition.

I have attached a photo of the front view of the FW 190 with the cowling machine gun cover removed. This clearly shows that no panel bar should be in the way of the revi gunsite. I also attached a photo of the cowling cover in place to show that it would not hinder the view of the gunsight as well if it was attached. The Revi gunsight photo was taken from the following book:
Walk Around, Fockewulf FW 190A/F number 22
Squadron Signal Publications
The Revi sight photo was taken from page 26(Rio Hondo FW190)
The front cowling photo was from page 12


The photo with the mannequin was taken by myself at the San Antonio Texas Air Museum. I have been to the Rio Hondo, TX museum as well and have had the opportunity to sit in the cockpit of one of their Focke Wulfs.

http://images.snapfish.com/3387755923232%7Ffp8%3Enu%3D3232%3E44%3A%3E297%3E23 2344%3A388982ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/3387755923232%7Ffp8%3Enu%3D3232%3E44%3A%3E297%3E23 2344%3A388984ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/3387%3A%3A4%3B23232%7Ffp8%3Enu%3D3232%3E44%3B%3E5% 3C8%3E232344%3B6%3B96%3C%3Aot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/3387%3A%3C%3A323232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E2323%3D53%3C%3 D866%3D323253%3C7755%3A%3Cnu0mrj

http://images.snapfish.com/3387755923232%7Ffp8%3Enu%3D3232%3E44%3A%3E297%3E23 2344%3A388985ot1lsi


I also decided to add the MK 108 photos at the bottom as well. I love this sim by the way, I just wish that some of these issues could be addressed. Thanks Oleg and Company for that.

New photos added 10-2-03:

http://www.jg51.net/images/fw190pics/first190.jpg
Please note in this photo that the reflection on the outer bar area is the nuts and bolts. The lower bar area is the transparent reflected area.

http://images.snapfish.com/3387%3A72723232%7Ffp8%3Enu%3D3232%3E44%3B%3E3%3B9% 3E232344%3B4%3A%3A354ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/3387%3A72723232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E2323%3D53%3C%3D4%3 B%3B%3D323253%3C3%3C%3A53%3Bnu0mrj

http://www.jg51.net/images/fw190pics/finalproof1.jpg


http://www.jg51.net/images/fw190pics/finalproof1makings.jpg

http://images.snapfish.com/3388536%3B23232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2323%3D544%3D559%3D3 232544468%3B%3A6nu0mrj

http://images.snapfish.com/3388536%3B23232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2323%3D544%3D559%3D3 232544468764nu0mrj

http://images.snapfish.com/3388536%3B23232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2323%3D544%3D566%3D3 232544475933nu0mrj

http://images.snapfish.com/3388389523232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2323%3D543%3D86%3B%3D3 23254377%3A%3C89nu0mrj

PLEASE NOTICE ON CIRX'S PHOTO BELOW HOW MUCH HIGHER THE REVI 16 SITS WHEN IN PLACE.


Message Edited on 10/09/0304:37AM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 11:58 PM
Just in case there is any doubt that the pic with the doll in is of a real 190, here is a whole set of pics by swine of the same plane :

http://www.triplane.net/kitesworld/kites.htm

Also note the top picture of the Revi is taken from well below the line of sight (under the hood so to speak), and still the bar does not obstruct it.

Here are pics of another 190 , same as in Swines pic, but with sight fitted :

http://www.triplane.net/190/research/resimages/pits/pit1.JPG


http://www.triplane.net/190/research/resimages/pits/pit3.JPG


S!
Cirx

http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG

Message Edited on 09/29/03 12:11AM by Cirx

Message Edited on 09/29/03 12:12AM by Cirx

Message Edited on 09/29/0312:14AM by Cirx

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 12:13 AM
IV_JG51_Swine

This a/c is painted up to represent the a/c of Leutnant Rudolf Linz? On Cirx's site it says he was shot down in it.

Is it really an a-7? That would be a great preservation as I believe only about 70 A-7s were built.

cool pics, thanks for sharing./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



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

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 12:39 AM
Yes it is an A7. The Texas Air Museam group has a couple of 190s, most notably "White 1" an F8 they are rebuilding to fly.Most of their 190 are recovered from crash sites in Norway as I understand, and the F8 and A7 was both from Norway, and both from the SAME BATTLE! (Black Friday)The F8 that day was flown by Orlowski.

They have a fabulous workshop and many knowlegable people who all share the enhusiasm for this model. I am having great email exchanges with them and might even be helping a bit with research for the white 1 foundation.

Once white 1 is airworthy, people will also be able to get in and have their picture taken for a donation. In this our views of what a museum should be is very similar, we will be doing the same here in SA.I dont like those waxed up shiny new warbirds you see from behinf a barier in big museums. The craft should look like it did when it was living it's purpouse. The paint SHOULD be flaked, the finishes SHOULD be dull, and , even in exchange for a donation, one should be able to, under supervision, caress the cfat, smell it, and even get in and see if you fit.If this is done with a polished museum exibit, then usually its nice but not much else. But when its a bird that has been virtually untouched since the last shot was fired from it, you get a chill down your spine and the hair on the back of your neck stand up, and you become very queiet because all the things you thought of asking are out of your head, and that little chip of worn away paint around the gun button is the closest you will get to a time machine in your life.

http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 01:06 AM
Oleg Maddox,
In light of all the photo evidence and research done on this issue, to have the attitude the your modeling of the gunsite view of the FW190's is correct and needs no change...... well, YOU IS WRONG!

You dont happen to be friends with the guy that was the lead developer of Warbirds 3 do you? I see some striking similarities in your attitudes.

BOOM!

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 01:10 AM
> You dont happen to be friends with the guy that was the lead developer of Warbirds 3 do you? I see some striking similarities in your attitudes.

What - u whittled down that guy with rude and unpleasant behaviour too ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

Message Edited on 09/26/0312:11AM by ROSHKO_69.GIAP

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 01:47 AM
MG15120 wrote:
- Oleg Maddox,
- In light of all the photo evidence and research
- done on this issue, to have the attitude the your
- modeling of the gunsite view of the FW190's is
- correct and needs no change...... well, YOU IS
- WRONG!
-
-
- You dont happen to be friends with the guy that was
- the lead developer of Warbirds 3 do you? I see some
- striking similarities in your attitudes.
-
-
- BOOM!
-
-
-

You know some of the (LUFTWHINNERS) as there so affectionately called! Really are trying to accomplish as accurate a representation of these aircraft as possible! So why make it tougher than it has to be with @sshat statements like this?

<img src="http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/D13-Hamm109 copy.jpg"

<img src="http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/D13-Hamm109 copy.jpg"

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 02:55 AM
Cirx wrote:
- Yes it is an A7. The Texas Air Museam group has a
- couple of 190s, most notably "White 1" an F8 they
- are rebuilding to fly.Most of their 190 are
- recovered from crash sites in Norway as I
- understand, and the F8 and A7 was both from Norway,
- and both from the SAME BATTLE! (Black Friday)The F8
- that day was flown by Orlowski.
-
- They have a fabulous workshop and many knowlegable
- people who all share the enhusiasm for this model. I
- am having great email exchanges with them and might
- even be helping a bit with research for the white 1
- foundation.
-
- Once white 1 is airworthy, people will also be able
- to get in and have their picture taken for a
- donation. In this our views of what a museum should
- be is very similar, we will be doing the same here
- in SA.I dont like those waxed up shiny new warbirds
- you see from behinf a barier in big museums. The
- craft should look like it did when it was living
- it's purpouse. The paint SHOULD be flaked, the
- finishes SHOULD be dull, and , even in exchange for
- a donation, one should be able to, under
- supervision, caress the cfat, smell it, and even get
- in and see if you fit.If this is done with a
- polished museum exibit, then usually its nice but
- not much else. But when its a bird that has been
- virtually untouched since the last shot was fired
- from it, you get a chill down your spine and the
- hair on the back of your neck stand up, and you
- become very queiet because all the things you
- thought of asking are out of your head, and that
- little chip of worn away paint around the gun
- button is the closest you will get to a time machine
- in your life.
-
- <img
- src="http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.
- JPG">


Cirx i saw a special on the discovery wing channel where they reunited "white 1" with the pilot that was shot down in that plane over norway. It was a very breathtaking scene.




http://www.x-plane.org/users/12thiaptbone/darth.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 09:27 AM
Hi.

Just to clarify. The second Fw 190 you are talking about is an A-8, W. Nr. 732183, not an A-7 (which was not so rare, many more than 70-80 were built).

Here's a profile I made of this plane:

http://www.museumsnett.no/midttromsmuseum/forskningssider/norspider/Profiler%20og%20lignende/Fw190A8bl%e54Gretel.jpg

BigSpider

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 10:04 AM
hi,

sorry..I'm missing a accurate gunsight view by pilots view..

.. looking forward to more exact future studies and professional taken pics by sitting in a original restored FW-190 cockpit... in horizontal postion of the plane ..as you adjust the revi16b to convergence of the weapons... hight to pilots view ..after moved pilot's seat to a optimal hight of pilots eyes and body....

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 10:14 AM
IMO, this plane is the best potential source for any study regarding forward view with correct Revi and its mounting.

One of a kind, I'd say /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 01:07 PM
"hi,

sorry..I'm missing a accurate gunsight view by pilots view..

.. looking forward to more exact future studies and professional taken pics by sitting in a original restored FW-190 cockpit... in horizontal postion of the plane ..as you adjust the revi16b to convergence of the weapons... hight to pilots view ..after moved pilot's seat to a optimal hight of pilots eyes and body...."


Just to clarify, the point here is that from viewing the first photo there is obviously no way that the panel bar area would interfere with the REVI 16 on that FW if you were in the cockpit. One reason is that you can see that the panel bar does not interfere with the gunsight view and the view from the photo that was taken from the front is from a lower position as well. I agree though, I look forward to refurbished photos. That will be a great plus, especially all of the work being done with the Rio Hondo birds. They will have one flying soon in Florida from what they told me.





Message Edited on 09/26/03 12:08PM by IV_JG51_Swine

Message Edited on 09/26/0302:02PM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 08:45 PM
After researching the FW 190 further and doing some 1/32 scale modeling I noticed a small flaw with the size of the MK108 cannon in the A-8 and A-9 models. From what I have been able to produce through research, the MK108 is not an extended barrel as in the 20mm that where later produced for the A-8 and A-9 model. I will post the photos. Just a small deal but I thought I would post it.


http://images.snapfish.com/33879%3A7923232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2323%3D53%3B%3D%3C87 %3D323253%3B%3B96%3B63nu0mrj



http://images.snapfish.com/33879%3A7923232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E2323%3D53%3B%3D%3C 85%3D323253%3B%3B94%3A55nu0mrj


I want to repeat from the previous post. This is an outstanding sim that I love to fly. Thanks Oleg and Team for that.





Message Edited on 09/29/03 02:16AM by IV_JG51_Swine

Message Edited on 09/29/0302:16AM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 10:17 PM
BigSpider wrote:
- Hi.
-
- Just to clarify. The second Fw 190 you are talking
- about is an A-8, W. Nr. 732183, not an A-7 (which
- was not so rare, many more than 70-80 were built).
-
- Here's a profile I made of this plane:
-
- <img
- src="http://www.museumsnett.no/midttromsmuseum/for
- skningssider/norspider/Profiler%20og%20lignende/Fw
- 190A8bl%e54Gretel.jpg">
-
- BigSpider
-
-

Hi BigSpider

I went back and looked it up in the warbird registry. You are absolutely correct. The original A7 flown by Rudi was of course completely destroyed. This is an A8 made to represent his. Or so I understand it anyways. You are spot on, thank you for the info.

Great profile. Do you do a lot of that? Can I use this one?Do you have a website?Can I have a banner?Any more where that comes from? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

S!
Cirx



http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 10:45 PM
Just a bump!

Oleg, please, see it, believe it and act.

Regards, Sven

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 06:43 AM
Bump on !


Great work boys. At least now, we can see what should be and what it isn't...

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 01:23 PM
Cirx wrote:
- But when its a bird that has been
- virtually untouched since the last shot was fired
- from it, you get a chill down your spine and the
- hair on the back of your neck stand up, and you
- become very queiet because all the things you
- thought of asking are out of your head, and that
- little chip of worn away paint around the gun
- button is the closest you will get to a time machine
- in your life.


Very well said Cirx, very well indeed.

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


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

ZG77_Nagual
09-29-2003, 01:32 PM
starfighter1 wrote:
- hi,
-
- sorry..I'm missing a accurate gunsight view by
- pilots view..
-
- .. looking forward to more exact future studies and
- professional taken pics by sitting in a original
- restored FW-190 cockpit... in horizontal postion of
- the plane ..as you adjust the revi16b to convergence
- of the weapons... hight to pilots view ..after moved
- pilot's seat to a optimal hight of pilots eyes and
- body....

I concur - I know some of you have sat in the cockpit - but this pictures are not at all definitive. I really can't extrapolate the gunsight view from them


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

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 01:46 PM
You know, when I see the pictures of the cockpits of these airplanes, I don't think of the differences between those planes and the planes in FB, I suddenly have great respect for the men and women of our armed forces. You are looking inside the cockpit of a killing machine. For its time, it had an incredible amount of power and killing ability. It is a demonstration of man's desire to kill his enemy. Whether its German, American, British, etc doesn't matter. I have great respect for all the men and women who flew those planes and died in their cockpits. To me it goes much deeper than whether the cockpit is accurate. It gives us a chance to relive history.

God bless America, and if your not from America and you are on our side in our fight against terrorism, may God bless your country as well.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 02:31 PM
I guess I am debating a little here - lol........


Thanks for the bumps and for the previous post about seeing the actual cockpits and the sims. Yes it is kind of surreal to see the actual cockpit and weapons up close. The smell sends chills up your spine as well. Everytime I fly this sim it amazes me at how realistic it is. Too bad we can't get the g feel from those tight turns, if we did I bet those VVS pilots wouldn't be turning as tight as they do in their Yaks - lol......



Message Edited on 10/03/0303:11PM by IV_JG51_Swine

ZG77_Nagual
09-29-2003, 03:29 PM
Respectfully - I disagree it could show from inside - looking through the sight. The 'bar' in question looks to me like the bottom of the frame around the glass - so you can really only determine if it is there by looking through the gunsight as one would while aiming. It's really the only picture that is going to do the trick!

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

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 05:19 PM
whinners! whinners! Stop it and plaY! old guys..

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 05:51 PM
BigganD wrote:
- whinners! whinners! Stop it and plaY! old guys..
-
-
spelling! spelling! learn to spell before insulting others!



--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
09-29-2003, 06:10 PM
PS - I fly mostly the 190.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 08:45 PM
I realize that the FW 190 view topic has been run into the ground but I don't think that everyone should just give up and do or say nothing. If anybody finds new evidence or whatever, they should post it and discuss it.

Second, this is not whining, we are looking at actual photos and conducting research here.



ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- Respectfully - I disagree it could show from inside
- - looking through the sight. The 'bar' in question
- looks to me like the bottom of the frame around the
- glass - so you can really only determine if it is
- there by looking through the gunsight as one would
- while aiming. It's really the only picture that is
- going to do the trick!
-
<img
- src="http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47jane
- s.jpg">
-


I disagree 100 percent. For that bar area to be see inside the actual Revi gunsight in the first photo you would have to be standing up in the cockpit and looking directly down and then you would just see the machine gun cowling. I agree with you in that for this to be a definite we need to see shots from inside the cockpit with a correct Revi 16(not 12) gunsight with it mounted correctly, no question about that. On a side note it kind of cracks me up a little in that I believe that if I was a pilot back then and they gave me this aircraft with the sight system as in game, I and probably every pilot in the Luftwaffe would complain until they raised it to enhance defelction shooting and snap shots - then again they may just say don't ask why, just do and die - lol

I do know that a friend of mine has met and discussed the FW 190 with Horst Peltzschler(who lives in Kansas btw) and he was advised that the view from the FW and the sight system was excellent. I will ask him if I could post a picture of the two.

I guess I feel that there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the 190 view in game possibly has some flaws and I wish that Oleg and Company could just put some more effort into looking at the research that has been conducted. I firmly believe that there is a great possiblity that the aircraft that they utilized for the game might have been an aircraft that had been refurbished incorrectly. Thats nobodys fault. Oh well, I will get off my soapbox now.

Thanks for your input and your opinion ZG77_Nagual. Since you seem to be a FW 190 fan, if you see any good shots through research and you would like to add anything please feel free.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 11:30 PM
here Nagual

http://www.triplane.net/190/research/resimages/Diags/Fw%20view.jpg



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



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

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 04:52 AM
Thanks MiloMorai...I found another shot that gives a good representation of the front cockpit view. I cannot see any bar located here that would block the Revi 16.

http://images.snapfish.com/3387%3A%3C2%3B23232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E2323%3D53%3C%3 D866%3D323253%3C7755%3A%3Cnu0mrj



I also plan on conducting a more indepth study this December of the 190s here in San Antonio if they let me....I will ask Cirx to post that on his site when its complete.



Message Edited on 09/30/0303:56AM by IV_JG51_Swine

ZG77_Nagual
09-30-2003, 05:06 AM
This is all great work guys - I don't think it's quite 'there' yet - but I hope we can keep it positive and keep going. Unless they pull a 190 out of lake michigan I'm unlikely to be able to contribute much.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:15 AM
Bump for a mature thread for a change.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Great work guys...

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:21 AM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- This is all great work guys - I don't think it's
- quite 'there' yet - but I hope we can keep it
- positive and keep going. Unless they pull a 190 out
- of lake michigan I'm unlikely to be able to
- contribute much.
-


Why is it not 'quite there'?

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



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

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:52 AM
This last picture that Swine took is a gem imho. Even though there is no Revi in it one can see that the top of the dash and the area that the Revi would be in is higher than the infamous canopy frame at the base of the windscreen. Now, if we were to put a Revi in so that you see the frame that would mean we'd have to lower the Revi to such a point that it itself would only be partially sticking up through the gun sight hole in the dash. So then the dash itself would be the problem. Even more to the point is that Swine took this shot from an elevated position, obviously as we are able to see the top surface of the dash, yet we can barely see that darn bottom frame of the canopy.

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

Message Edited on 09/29/0309:53PM by IVJG51_Dart

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:57 AM
Won't help, at least not with Jippo.

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

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



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

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 06:28 AM
Keep the faith bud. A picture is worth a 1000 words. At least I heard that somewhere - lol.......



Message Edited on 09/30/0305:30AM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 07:24 AM
Bump !

Why the hell can't they change it ?
Is it such a disgrace to please several thousand customers ?

Already I saw unpleasant reviews on amazon.com / amazon.co.uk and I guess this is just the beginning.

BTT: From modellers Point of view I can see that they think they're right. I really think so. Butunfortunately we're facing a problem here.
All modelling is done without this infamous refraction.(yawn at repetition) So all seems logically right and by comparing numbers/measurements etc. it is correct, but unfortunately it is wrong as hell as we (humans) have two eyes. As such this MUST be taken into account. So I think there must something like an advise/guidance how to "alter" the mathematically-"correct" cockpits so that they look "correct" from someone's perspective.
All this refraction stuff is well known and it can be calculated (it's physics after all). So if they don't want to remove the bar, then alter my perspective. That's it. Raise the revi and raise the horizon. No offense taken. In general this would mean that from the outside the plane flies horizontal but in game terms would have the infamous nose-down attitude. Man it CAN'T be that difficult to do that. Doesn't matter which way you see it.
It's no problem to change it, so it is better. Right now one has the feeling that he can't even fly horizontal with the bird. You don't even see the ground flying level.
It's really annoying and I don't know how long one can take this "simulation" for serious if the developers simply refuse to see it....... *whine

But we wont falter... FIGHT ON ! Great Job. You've got my respect...

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 08:18 AM
JaBo_HH--Gotcha wrote:
- BTT: From modellers Point of view I can see that
- they think they're right. I really think so.
- Butunfortunately we're facing a problem here.
- All modelling is done without this infamous
- refraction.(yawn at repetition) So all seems
- logically right and by comparing
- numbers/measurements etc.

Please let me add one insight, following your logic above:
The modellers believe that if refraction is to exist at all it must be taken care of SEPARATELY from the 3D model. The modellers prefer that Oleg or someone write "magic" refraction code to apply refraction to dimensionally perfect models. It makes good sense, from the point of view of the modellers.

Here is the monkey wrench in the works--- The 3D models are NOT dimensionally perfect. Jiggling a few parts by 1 centimeter to approximate refraction is entirely reasonable. Oleg's modelling guidelines have already set a precedent here.

Q: What precedent makes it acceptable to model refraction by changing the model and making it "imperfect"?

A: The 3D models are already dimensionally incorrect. At low LOD (level of detail) the wings become VERY VERY thick. I challenge any 3D modeller "expert" to create a degraded LOD model where the wings are only scale thickness. Oleg reject the model outright because the wings are shown thicker for the sake of visibility.

We're working within limitations. The modellers seem to be asking for Oleg to code up some magic refraction routine because apparently, they can't tell the difference between a properly functional simulation model vs. a dimensionally perfect CAD model.

'Perfect' is enemy of 'good enough' --Admiral Gorshkov
It's a trap! --Admiral Ackbar

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:20 AM
Didn't knew that but all I wanted to say (between the lines) that although the modellers think they do everthing RIGHT they'Re wrong in a way. Sometimes, doing it right ONE way will utterly fail in another.
As it is well known that there's NO magic code for refraction they must assume/expect/calculate it themselves to make it correct for perspective.
One can measure where the eys of t he pilot would be in TOP conditions. One can measure/know (from historical data) how the pilot was sitting etc.
So before getting knee deep into physics there is one small solution for the modellers called
"historical and perspectival assumed cockpit".

In short, model the cockpit correctly and then do tweaks according to photographs and some physics.

As I said, I think nobody would be hurt in his pride if you
a) either make the bar very small (I wonder I can see the brackets for the armoured glass but not the glass, which is odd, the same for all side windows. Which means there'Re no windows installed...)

b) rise the Revi and lower the horizontal pitch of the plane a bit so we get to actually see where we fly to... = a.k.a Nose Down attitude (without changing the external view) = which I think was common in every plane having steep big armored windshields.

I don't think this would hurt anyone. It seems however we'Re damned here to fight on until death but then get called whiners once some of us start complaining that other planes have "better than historical" view.

it's odd that the developers dare to start a thread like "FW190: forward issue solved" post one bad quality picture and then vanish not to be seen again, although evidence was brought to him.

Reminds me of "management by helicopter". Stay above and only come down to create winds (confusion) before lifting off again...

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:49 AM
JaBo_HH--Gotcha wrote:
- Reminds me of "management by helicopter".

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

Ok, ok, this is off topic, but you might find it amusing anyway:

A man is flying a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He reduces height and spots a man down below. He lowers the balloon further and shouts, "Excuse me. Can you help me?

"I promised a friend I would meet him half an hour ago, but I do not know where I am."

The man below says, "Yes, you are in a hot air balloon, hovering approximately 30 feet above this field. You are between 40 and 42 degrees north latitude and between 58 and 60 degrees west longitude."

"You must be an engineer," calls down the balloonist.

"Yes, I am," replies the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," says the balloonist, "everything you have told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I am still lost."

The man below says, "you must be a manager."

"Yes, I am," replies the balloonist, "but how did you know ?"

"Well," comes the answer, "you did not know where you are, nor where you are going. You have made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem.

"The fact is, you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, BUT NOW IT IS SOMEHOW MY FAULT."

<font size="-2">'Perfect' is enemy of 'good enough' --Admiral Gorshkov
It's a trap! --Admiral Ackbar</font>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:56 AM
Great stuff, Swine. You are so close to getting us the final proff. Now climb into that cockpit with your camera /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 04:59 PM
Hristos wrote:
- Great stuff, Swine. You are so close to getting us
- the final proff. Now climb into that cockpit with
- your camera /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- <center><img
- src="http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/nto
- mlino/uploads/sig.jpg">

I am working on that guys. Unfortunately, I am out of town for work until November/December time frame. I am going to try to put something together at that point when I return.

Thanks for the support.

Swine

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:37 PM
lol @ ballon joke
i think the site is wrong, u cant do deflection shooting :\

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 06:06 PM
Col.Tomb wrote:

- Q: What precedent makes it acceptable to model
- refraction by changing the model and making it
- "imperfect"?
-
- A: The 3D models are already dimensionally
- incorrect. At low LOD (level of detail) the wings
- become VERY VERY thick. I challenge any 3D modeller
- "expert" to create a degraded LOD model where the
- wings are only scale thickness. Oleg reject the
- model outright because the wings are shown thicker
- for the sake of visibility.

Sorry, but your argument is fundamentally flawed. External models have multiple levels of detail, whereas cockpits have only one. I'm not going to go on about this, because it's already been discussed at lenght in the "other thread." /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


I/JG54^Lukas
He 162 A-2 Cockpit Modeler
...and soon the Hs 129 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 06:57 PM
Hi Tomb,

While you'll find me in complete agreement that some compromise should be worked out Re:FW190 cockpits, I'd just like to take this opportunity to mention that I find your attitude towards jippo completely unacceptable. Thankyou so much for doing such a fine job of trying to alienating one of the best resources the FB community has going. That you're arguing with him over a cockpit that he had nothing to do with in the first place just makes your attack seem even more juvenile.

I was also wondering where I might be able to download your freely provided accurately detailed 3d models of WWII cockpits from? I'd just like a quick look to see if your work is up to scratch. C'mon. Don't be shy. It's only a few tens if not hundreds of hours work depending on whether you count the research, and I promise I won't say anything unkind. Probably.



http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 07:50 PM
You is wrong. We not change anything. Show me sim better than FB. Not change in next sim too. Be sure.

[I have no probs with Oleg, I don`t use to critize him, just with his attitude in this case he`s a bit irritating]

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

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 08:01 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
- Hi Tomb,
-
- While you'll find me in complete agreement that some
- compromise should be worked out Re:FW190 cockpits,
- I'd just like to take this opportunity to mention
- that I find your attitude towards jippo completely
- unacceptable. Thankyou so much for doing such a
- fine job of trying to alienating one of the best
- resources the FB community has going. That you're
- arguing with him over a cockpit that he had nothing
- to do with in the first place just makes your attack
- seem even more juvenile.
-
- I was also wondering where I might be able to
- download your freely provided accurately
- detailed 3d models of WWII cockpits from? I'd just
- like a quick look to see if your work is up to
- scratch. C'mon. Don't be shy. It's only a few
- tens if not hundreds of hours work depending on
- whether you count the research, and I promise I
- won't say anything unkind. Probably.
-
-
-
-
- <img
- src="http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_p
- arasite.jpg" width=315 height=240 alt=""
- align="middle">
-
- Need help with NewView? Read <a
- href="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-
- topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj">this
- thread.</a>


I read that other thread, and from my point of view both , and some others , contributed to the direction of the debate, and as for Jippo, I enjoy his work and hope he continues, but he did see that one coming and he ran towards it head first.

I had to laugh reading that other thread. Recently I visited the Africa Aerospace and defence exibit (Nice Russian chicks) with the guys who are building the circuit boards for the Grippen. I saw some guys there from a company that does flight and combat simulation programs for airforce training all over the world. I asked some of them why they dont get into game-simulations, and I mentioned IL2. They laughed at me. I think I am beginning to see why.

That thread about refraction is a typical example. A couple of educated and accomplished weathermen are inside their building arguing violently about how hard it is raining outside,and all their co-workers are taking them very very seriously, while everybody outside can see the sun is shining. someone walks in and goes ballistic at them, trying to show them the sunshine outside, because already they are starting to build barricades,shelters and wrapping their valuables in condoms. He tries to open the blinds, but they dont even look. In any case, the windows are probably fake, and anyway, where is THIS guy's doctorate in meteorology?

Sounds like Joseph Heller to me.

I always did feel sorry for Yossarian. He should have listened to Kid Samson.

In a world of blind men, the one eyed man is the enemy.

S!
Cirx




http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 08:12 AM
Well Guys,
Ever Since Oleg posted his official response including photos, it was like bieng spoken to by God in regards to this flight Sim.
Ever since then it seems a minority group of posters keeps re starting the same old thread in regards to the 190 view, and how they are not happy with it and how God ( as far as this Sim goes) got it wrong.

Yet nothing changes, Just Like Oleg said it would not.
I can just imagine 10 years from now when we are flying in other Air Combat Sims Online they may some times refer back to the Legendary Bench mark Sim that was Il-2/FB that never did get the 190 forward view changed from the developers original model.

After all, there have been so many changes already in this Sim, you kinda get the feeling that if the developer had any intentions of changing the 190 Forward view, then it would have already been changed by now.

Just an observation here.

S!

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 08:39 AM
doesn'T matter. Anyday this thing isn't changed and repeated it more and more shows how ignorant and stubborn the developers are....

This is pure ignorance. The developers change FM with every patch. They manage to change the DM for all planes but yet they refuse to give in. It's not us who is the minority...

After all, check out how many times CIRX page was visited (better aks him). That's no minority any more...

The irony of it, is simply the fact that
a) there's no more comment on it
b) no prooves from the developers side since their poor picture

although they all want technical data or photographies from us.

Reminds me of the church burning people for saying that the world is actually a globe not a dish...


Fact is:
A lot of people spent time, money and work into showing that there is an oversight. It's joke. A real bad one.
This is so annoying it spoils the fun for this so called sim more and more. In the beginning it was annoying but with time it gets a pain.

And BTW as long as we will remind people of the issue they will see it's there... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 09:46 AM
Keep up the good work fellas! This subject always brings a smile on my face..

Actually Chevy Chase said it well; "It takes a great man to admit ones mistake. I am not a great man."

..reminds me of someone, be sure.

-possu

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 12:42 PM
JaBo_HH--Gotcha wrote:
- doesn'T matter. Anyday this thing isn't changed and
- repeated it more and more shows how ignorant and
- stubborn the developers are....
-
- This is pure ignorance. The developers change FM
- with every patch. They manage to change the DM for
- all planes but yet they refuse to give in. It's not
- us who is the minority...
-
-

Did we not hear that 'doing' the FMs are 70% of the work involved in an a/c? That leaves 30% for the modelling. Hmmmm.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



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

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 01:00 PM
> I asked some of them why they dont get into game-simulations, and I mentioned IL2. They laughed at me. I think I am beginning to see why.

Sry but why did they laugh ? Because they thought 'Hah - that's the sim with the uncorrect FW-190 forward view' ?

Do they dig old archives for their specs - or do they have access to the planes they are modelling ?

Do these guys do simulations on PC hardware ?

U got me curious /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:08 PM
Well, I have to say it but the more I am involved with IL-2/FB the more of a negative tone I see from the fans and prior loyal fans. I am afraid of that because if its bad now just imagine what it will be like 2-3 years from now. Especially if the FMs and the views are not enhanced correctly. I hate to see this kind of sim looked at in a negative way.



Message Edited on 10/02/0310:48PM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:38 PM
no wonder (this getting off topic now but nevertheless).
I mean on one side they do some "alibi"-Forum in which to discuss issues and then either completely refuse or ignore them.

I mean what did they expect ? to see "Praise Oleg andd this company" threads every day ?

So they wanted to know what we want to have, we answered.
We get ignored or we get "you are wrong"-ed.

Now we have a WW2 simulation where on the one side we have two countries battling it out.
Germany and Soviet union.

And the mainstay fighters of Germany are "crippled" (I know they still have their edges but just compare...).

I'm not in the climb-rate-debate but I follow the discussion of the FW190 forward view since I have FB.
Unfortunately the FW190 is the only real plane of interest so in other words the SIM is "broken". This will apply for everyone loving this crate. It was one of the primary factors to BUY this product. This will apply to a lot of other ppl too.
I think no real FW190 fan would say "give us gatling mk103s and turn rates of La-7".
Hell I'm not even concerned about the FM at all and if they take 10% roll rate out, I think wouldn't miss it.
If they make the DM model more sophisticated OK, so be it.
I still wonder what the other players would say if 25% of their aiming reticule would be blocked on their plane by a flaw while your opponents planes were perfect or "augmented". I don't know who in the world would create a plane where the pilot is not able to look on the horizon while flying level...

What is most striking is the fact that FB has the BIGGEST potential to become an LEGEND among FlightSims, but this means you have to reason with ALL sides and you have to be unbiased and accurate as much as you can.

Already the claims of realism and accurace are losing evidence. If they FM were accurate how comes 75% changed with first patch ?
How comes they were changed again and again... etc.

This is going into the wrong direction....

ZG77_Nagual
10-01-2003, 02:51 PM
You guys do realize that we are applying an unprecedentedly (word?) high standard to this simm. No other simm in existence could come close to tolerating this level of scrutiny as well as FB has. Nor is any other developer as receptive to user input.

I will say the contentious and really quite insulting nature of many of the posts on the subject would definitely put me off making any changes. Oleg has had to endure all kinds of unqualified remarks and even very direct personal insults regarding this matter.

I hope those involved will continue to post relevant photos etc. But that everyone will refrain from threats, insults and broad predictions of doom.. This simm is far and away the best of it's kind and you are frankly wrong if you think a flaw in the windshield of the 190 or the fact that the developers don't jump all over themselves to fix every complaint and reply to every post is going to change that. Keep perspective please.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:10 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- You guys do realize that we are applying an
- unprecedentedly (word?) high standard to this simm.
- No other simm in existence could come close to
- tolerating this level of scrutiny as well as FB has.
- Nor is any other developer as receptive to user
- input

Well sorry to correct you but almost all games have kind of FOrums and listen to user input. So, NO it's nothing special ! I think it to be STANDARD.

Next is, this sim is no doubt a good product, but has flaws Period. Nobody wants to insult anyone of the dev team, but on the other side they don't make it easy for us too to defend our points. there is COUNTLESS evidence for this point and all we come along is "won't be changed".

I think it to be quite insulting when looking for how long this topic is alive NOTHING was done about it. Now I don't envy OLEG or his team for this, since trying to please such a big community is not easy, but one must not forget that THEY said it's correct and THEY/HE said we are wrong.
We must not forget that although a lot of people in the forums may lack maturity and pick their words wrong (as he does himself...btw somce he's no native speaker as most others too) so he, being more mature and an expert, should be the one to show that he knows better and he knows how to defend his point. This all hasn't happened (at least I didn't see it..).
There was one small all dark picture with this bad-shape FW, small green lines and a short comment and then he vanished...
Instead, concerning this matter, the FW190-community/fans have to endure all sort of "FW-Whiner/LW-Whiner" insults, have to witness the "Learn to fly stuff" etc. Still this Fan community kept on, trusting into the dev-team to see their point. So after all this has been done one seriously can't be happy and say "Great it's the best all around". For this small part of people it isn't any longer...

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:11 PM
Nothing really became contentious until AFTER "the GREAT ONE" decided to treat his customers as uneducated dorks.

After that happened a few times in different threads things were bound to degrade regarding the opinions of OM.

This is an issue that should be corrected.Lack of willingness to correct it is a bad thing.


BOOM!

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:14 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- You guys do realize that we are applying an
- unprecedentedly (word?) high standard to this simm.
- No other simm in existence could come close to
- tolerating this level of scrutiny as well as FB has.
- Nor is any other developer as receptive to user
- input.
-

Unfortunately Oleg set himself up to expect a high standard when he used "most authentic sim". There is nothing "authentic" about the Fw's pilot view in Il-2/FB.

This sim/game is about a/c and this should be the main effort put out, perfecting the all aspects of the a/c(FM, DM, pilot view, .....), not adding "eye candy".


-
- I will say the contentious and really quite
- insulting nature of many of the posts on the subject
- would definitely put me off making any changes.
- Oleg has had to endure all kinds of unqualified
- remarks and even very direct personal insults
- regarding this matter.
-
-

Yes many of those 'bad' posts, but many were out of frustration because of "you is wrong" when clearly it is not them that is wrong.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



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

ZG77_Nagual
10-01-2003, 03:45 PM
Just for the record - my argument was for being polite.
Also for the record - I've used both the microsoft and Janes products and attempted to contact the developers at both - forums - yes - response and receptivity to user input - no.

Oleg is in charge of the development team - if that makes him "The Great One" to you - so be it.

Near as I can tell he's a very smart, and friendly guy who has alot of enthusiasm for ww2 aviation. What I'm saying is, if I were in his shoes I'd be interested in the hard data, but I'd be weighing that against how much noise I had to cut through to get to it. Some of you guys are veritable chaff dispensers when it comes to that.

Milo - you do have a point - my point is if people continue to abuse the privalege they may lose it.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:45 PM
The bar doesn't cover 25% of the sight.

Get a grip.

I read these threads for the same reason I watch racing - there's just something fascinating about something going around and around with random crashes that are spectacular but without any bearing to the outcome.

I wouldn't make a flight sim on a bet - there isn't a Luftwhiner alive that will be happy with ANY sim, ever.

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 04:28 PM
http://wolf.equitatura.de//Bilder/190_****_3.jpg


MfG Frank

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

ZG77_Nagual
10-01-2003, 04:47 PM
That picture would support Oleg's position (arguably of course) but as I understand it the Revi there is improperly mounted.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 04:49 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- That picture would support Oleg's position (arguably
- of course) but as I understand it the Revi there is
- improperly mounted.
-
<img
- src="http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.
- jpg">
-



Why ?


MfG Frank

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

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 04:58 PM
I don't think tat pic supports Oleg's position. That bar is much smaller there. There are other cockpit photos where the is almost no bar.

And yes, that revi in that photo is NOT mounted properly.

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 04:59 PM
JaBo_HH--Gotcha wrote:
- ZG77_Nagual wrote:
-- You guys do realize that we are applying an
-- unprecedentedly (word?) high standard to this simm.
-- No other simm in existence could come close to
-- tolerating this level of scrutiny as well as FB has.
-- Nor is any other developer as receptive to user
-- input
-
- Well sorry to correct you but almost all games have
- kind of FOrums and listen to user input. So, NO it's
- nothing special ! I think it to be STANDARD.

Hi Gotcha,

I agree that at times Oleg is overly aggressive, and that many companies provide either a PR flak or occasionally a developer on their forums.

It's a little more rare for users to be able to suggest things directly for the next patch, if any.

It's worth bearing in mind that Oleg could just as easily never listen and never drop by. Ever again. When you're posting here it'd be a good idea to keep that in mind and to phrase your remarks to the developers in such a way that they are constructive and useful. At the moment ORR is little more than a place where deluded people hang out suffering under the impression that they are some kind of authority on flight sims or WW2. I'm sure Oleg considers your free advice to be worth every cent.

There are indeed bugs in FB, as there are in any software product, but it's important to keep perspective on them as they relate to the product as a whole.

- Next is, this sim is no doubt a good product, but
- has flaws Period. Nobody wants to insult anyone of
- the dev team, but on the other side they don't make
- it easy for us too to defend our points. there is
- COUNTLESS evidence for this point and all we come
- along is "won't be changed".

The FW190 view is the same FW190 view that was in Il-2 through every patch, as well as the released version of FB.

My question is, why did you buy FB if this was such a major issue?

- I think it to be quite insulting when looking for
- how long this topic is alive NOTHING was done about
- it.

I think perhaps you are missing the lesson.

It's been a topic that has been alive for a very, very long time, and nothing has been done.

Oleg has said that nothing will be done about it, either.

Yet you continue to post.

Ah - of course. It must be Oleg who's the stupid one. Right.

- We must not forget that although a lot of people in
- the forums may lack maturity and pick their words
- wrong (as he does himself...btw somce he's no native
- speaker as most others too) so he, being more mature
- and an expert, should be the one to show that he
- knows better and he knows how to defend his point.
- This all hasn't happened (at least I didn't see
- it..).

Developers owe you nothing.

They made a product, the publisher put it in a box, the retailer sold the box to you. You bought 'as is'. Oleg does not need to hang out here, he does not need to debate the finer points of 3d modelling with you, he does not need to act in a mature manner while doing so, and he does not need to debate the entire community over every single line of code in the sim.

He posts on forums of his own free will, on his own time and expense. You've got everything you paid for sitting in a box that says Forgotten Battles on the cover. Everything else is a bonus, provided of the developers own good will.

- Instead, concerning this matter, the
- FW190-community/fans have to endure all sort of
- "FW-Whiner/LW-Whiner" insults, have to witness the
- "Learn to fly stuff" etc. Still this Fan community
- kept on, trusting into the dev-team to see their
- point. So after all this has been done one seriously
- can't be happy and say "Great it's the best all
- around". For this small part of people it isn't any
- longer...

I can't quite recall anyone saying "learn to fly" over this issue, ever, though if you want to find me something in the forums about it I'd stand corrected.

What Cirx did was very very far from anything I'd term as "luftwhiner" conduct. He set out on his own time to research the issue, provided detailed evidence, approached the issue without any apparent prior bias and displayed his results to the entire community at his own considerable expense. What Cirx did was really, really good, and I do hope Oleg incorporates some of his work into a future product. Even if Maddox doesn't, then the research is freely available to anyone who wants to make their own model of the FW190 cockpit - hopefully one day the provision to insert user models/data will be included into FB and 99% of these issues can go away.

What almost everyone else in these threads has done is whine, loudly, and called Oleg names. This is about as far from useful as is possible and also goes some way to making Oleg ignore Cirx's useful input.

I'm sure Oleg will miss your well phrased, well intentioned, well researched, and entirely constructive criticisms when you don't buy his next sim. And so will I. I think I'll go off to shed a silent tear right now.


edit:

On receiving a 7 page reply from Gotcha over this message I think I should've more clearly pointed out what was counterwhining in general vs what was countering Gotcha's points. Safe to say I don't bear Gotcha any malice over his posts [nor do I bear anyone any degree malice other than some of the more incessantly stupid trolls]. Cirx's data is in, it has been received by Oleg, and apparently rejected - I think that's more or less end of issue as far as Maddox are concerned. Peoples efforts at this point should either go into lobbying for 3rd party model additions so that someone can use Cirx's photos to make a new cockpit, or they should simply let it drop, since Olegs posts on this issue seem fairly final. Calling Oleg names and coming out with bias theories is just making it less likely that Oleg will ever listen again, and I wish people [note: not necessarily Gotcha!] would understand that.



http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

Message Edited on 10/02/0309:38PM by clint-ruin

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 05:00 PM
Guys, let's please keep the rhetoric down here. Stay on topic and post any relevant evidence you may have. Yes, this is a very frustrating topic for many. I am one who feels a lot of frustration with this sim at the moment, but loosing your cool and composure isn't going to accomplish what we are after. All we can do is politely post evidence that supports our views (no pun intended /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ) and keep trudging away in hopes that this problem does get resolved.

As to the picture above. That is the wrong gun sight and mounting brackets. If memory serves me that is the Revi 12. It should be a Revi 16. In fact I believe that Fw is setup to represent an A-8, but is in fact not an A-8, but an earlier variant that the museum "dressed up" as an A-8 using improper pieces in various locations. Not an authentic representation of what it really should be. I believe Cirx covered this in the other thread.


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

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 05:06 PM
It is an A8 with the false Revi



MfG Frank

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

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 05:09 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- That picture would support Oleg's position (arguably
- of course) but as I understand it the Revi there is
- improperly mounted.
-

only if the 190 is flying nose up /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

the picture is done with the engine cowling lined up to the instrument panel, but the 190 cockpit is much higher than the engine

compare it to the La5 where the pilot is sitting behind the engine



quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 05:16 PM
JG53Harti wrote:
- It is an A8 with the false Revi
-
-
-
-
- MfG Frank
-
- <a href=http://www.jagdgeschwader53.de
- target=_blank><img
- src=http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/d
- iverses/harti.gif alt="III/JG53"></a>

Yeah, here is part of the post Cirx put up about this bird.

Cirx wrote:
"Just a few words about that book. The plane features in it, as well as in OM's posts on the subject, is a re-built A8.It lives at the Luftfahrtmuseum in Hannover.I have many photos of it.

A few important facts about it :

It is a REPLICA containing some original parts , most notably the engine.The fuselage was built by Flugwerk.

Things that are important about it for this discussion is that the dash-lining (the leather hose that protects the head from collision with the panelcover) is not original, and was re-made to best-guess approximations.

Also a Revi16b gunsight was not found for it and instead it is mounted with an old Revi 12 as seen on 109e's and 190 A2's. The position of the gunsight, which is wrong for this dashboard is therefore also the wrong height. In fact one can see on some photos it is a bit scew as well.

It is a wonderful replica but was built as a museum exibit, and not a detailed true life cockpit.But it is a wonderful example of what can be done. One cannot however base reasearh on it alone, due to the strange features I described above.

I have found many more accurate materials for research and also at last, a picture of a 16B at the CORRECT height.When the correct sight is mounted right, the 16b's body is well above the flush line of the dashboard. I will soon update sections of the website to post these pictures and also some great 16b shots."

--------

Not a good example to gather data from.


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

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 05:59 PM
hi,

Cockpit view by virtual pilots in simgames is one of the important points (among others like sound/FM ..) and the main problems in many game engine's camera view....

If there is a way to get better real gunsight views to desktop systems ..so what's the problem for the developers?

..have a look at LOCKON-dev.-team.. they are interest to best accurate gunsigt views in their sim...if there is a mistake ..they fix it ..or ?.. and they took more analyses in the beginning of the design....

It's depends also on a serious handling with the endusers...in this market....also after the release..

I lost my convidence in competence to this developer in some points more and more....

..and it's would a poor of serious way ..if this developer knows a lot of possible fixes..and he is not more interest to do the service as we know from the starting IL2 old...

...business is usual...

ZG77_Nagual
10-01-2003, 06:16 PM
quiet_man - I was taking that into account - and I did say 'arguably' - however - and more to the point - I invalidated the whole argument by pointing out the revi is not mounted correctly - and since then (and before) it's been pointed out the bird is itself a replica. In fact - if I'm not mistaken - Oleg posted a pic of this same plane to support his position quite awhile back which highlights that fact that even he makes mistakes, and that it is a picture that could go either way.

Personally I'm close to convinced on this issue - but not there yet. I'd like to add that no plane has benefited more from user initiated changes than the 190 - it's a simply phenomenal plane now on or offline (I know this because it's my fav). Balancing user input I would want to avoid the perception that I was creating uber planes based on the 'squeaky wheel' paradigm. Particularly when the bulk of the squeakers are as rude as this lot.

As I hear it alot of good changes are coming in the next patch - better 109s, P39s and laggs plus an excellent new focal point the recreational-fun-impaired: The P51 - and a nice Ki-84 for the circle fighters - another candidate for best dogfighter for sure.

Personally - I await the p63.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 06:25 PM
There he is, the infamous Clint-Ruin http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

since you don'T seem to get what I wanted to point out and I want to spare us another debate, we can solve this via the internal message stuff or via UBI.

But since I didn't attack you I still wonder why you attacked me....

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 07:14 PM
Well guys I expressed my opinions in regards to this topic and I will leave it at that. I feel that I deserved that from the amount of work that I put into this little study. I will plan to do some further research this December and will post my results. My goal is going to get a Revi 16 placed in a FW and have it photographed mounted properly. I'm not sure if I will be able to do it but I will try. However, I truely feel that the evidence that has been shown on Cirx's thread and mine has clearly shown that the view needs correction or it requires additional research by the developers. They owe us that. Why, because we are their customers and we have been told that this is the most authentic sim availible today. If they can produce evidence that suggests that what we researched is incorrect then I will be content. However, I haven't seen that evidence(even in the old threads). Also, I have to say, without sounding like I am sucking up to the developers, this sim is an outstanding product. On the other hand I feel there is a miscalculation here. I must also respectfully request that Oleg take a look at what we have produced. That would mean alot to this community.
Swine out



Message Edited on 10/01/03 06:17PM by IV_JG51_Swine

Message Edited on 10/02/0310:57PM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 08:09 PM
For those wondering about the Revi 12D, I beleive above is a quote I wrote about the A8 at the Museum in Hannover, that sums up everything. Here is again a pivture of an A3, which was the last FW model to use the 12D,see the correct height for the gunsight, and remember that the aiming points do not differ from A3 to A4 and bejond, the Revi 16 had to be mounted just as high. These and other such photos at http://www.triplane.net/190/fw190.htm



http://www.triplane.net/190/research/resimages/pits/Cockpitwithsight2.jpg



All the best

PS. clint-thanx for the kind words.

Someone asked about the laughing flightsim developers: I forget the company name.They build and program sims for aircraft and tanks for armed forces of many countries. I saw their work and was knocked out.Whn I mentioned IL2 the guy just laughed. When I asked him what was amusing he said nevermind. Well I never have a mind anyway!

I hope one day IL2 has a correct FW cockpit. I dont fly this plane in the game because of the cockpit.I dont mind about flightmodels and such.I am no expert in that and I am havy just to be flying them. But the FW view is like...mmm heresy or something...

Excuse me blabbing I am a bit tired. Goodnight!


O, here is a not so good pic of a 16 at the correct height

http://www.triplane.net/190/research/resimages/pits/pit1.JPG



Note how the dimmer lens is fully up with room to spare, another IL2 pet theory down the drain...


S!
Cirx

http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG

ZG77_Nagual
10-01-2003, 08:13 PM
By the way Cirx - great work!

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

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 11:48 PM
I really wish the cockpit would get fixed.

They way things are now, you can't bounce anyone cause just about everyone now knows to adjust their sound so they hear you comming. I always approach at high speed and usually line up low 6 so they dont see me in mirrors. Sounds just give away my attack.

Add that to the fact that the slightest turn leaves the fw190 with no gun solution to the deflection needed cause you can't see the damn plane. If you are patient you can get some deflection shots as a plane turns level across the front of your cockpit. But other than that your guns don't get many chances to inflict damage. If Oleg thinks this is the crap FW pilots had to deal with then he is dreaming.

Technically the cockpit is right, but without refraction it's execution in game is just pizz poor. He modeled that fat *** bar as it would look according to blueprints if you didn't get any refraction when looking through the glass.

I'd rather have an inaccurate cockpit that simulates what the view would look like with refraction than a crappy technically accurate cockpit that is irritating as hell to fly compared to every other cockpit in game.

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 07:02 AM
CrackFerret wrote:
- I'd rather have an inaccurate cockpit that simulates
- what the view would look like with refraction than a
- crappy technically accurate cockpit that is
- irritating as hell to fly compared to every other
- cockpit in game.

Which is the opinion of 98% of the followoers of this topic...

BUMP !

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 09:44 AM
That picture you showed us.."the mk 108 canon" is not the mk 108..that is the Mk 103 canons, and that pic is on a Fw-190 A-4 or A-5.. the had the mk103canons..Oleg has right..with the mk108..nothing wrong with it..

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:04 AM
No, the Mk108 cannons had shorter tubes.

And also the Mk108 fitted 190 A-8 and A-9 had their fuselage machine guns almost always removed: 135 kilos less if I remember well.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:04 AM
My mistake, 135 kilos less was when the external wing cannons were removed.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 01:24 PM
BigganD wrote:
- That picture you showed us.."the mk 108 canon" is
- not the mk 108..that is the Mk 103 canons, and that
- pic is on a Fw-190 A-4 or A-5.. the had the
- mk103canons..Oleg has right..with the mk108..nothing
- wrong with it..
-
-

http://images.snapfish.com/33879%3A7923232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2323%3D53%3B%3D%3C87 %3D323253%3B%3B96%3B63nu0mrj

Better brush up on your a/c IDing. The barrel of the MK103 was ~2.5 longer than the MK108. (1338mm - 550mm) The barrel of the MG151/20 was 1100mm in length.

The a/c in the photo is an A-8/R2 of IV./JG3 "Udet" with the "stubby" MK108 cannons.

This is a MK103

http://www.luftwaffe39-45.historia.nom.br/mk103.jpg

http://users.hol.gr/%7Enowi/luftarm/mk103_1.jpg


This is a MK108

http://users.hol.gr/~nowi/luftarm/mk108_4-1.jpg





http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



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

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 06:28 PM
Paragraph describing the Gun Sight and views. This is taken right from the report given by the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford after putting Oberleutnant Armin Faber's captured Fw 190 A-3 through full evaluation trials in 1942.

http://www.jg51.net/images/sightingview.jpg


Cheers,
Lawn Dart
Operations Officer, IV/JG51


Message Edited on 10/02/0310:30AM by IVJG51_Dart

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 08:09 PM
Message Edited on 10/02/03 07:36PM by IV_JG51_Swine

Message Edited on 10/02/0307:37PM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 08:32 PM
Great photos /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ...


Hmm, they modeled a reflection in FB /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .
-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

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

Message Edited on 10/02/0309:34PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 08:35 PM
Thanks...Guys I need to redo these. I will get them back up tonight. Sorry for the mistake....

Ok guys...here we go. I've posted these in the first post of this thread as well. Thanks for your patience.


New photos added 10-2-03:

http://www.jg51.net/images/fw190pics/first190.jpg


http://images.snapfish.com/3388364323232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2323%3D53%3B%3D3%3B5%3 D323253%3B2%3C4%3C87nu0mrj

http://images.snapfish.com/3388364323232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2323%3D543%3D86%3B%3D3 23254377%3A%3C89nu0mrj



Message Edited on 10/03/0308:30PM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 09:17 PM
Hmm, I'm modifying a screenshot of the FB 190 cockpit with Photoshop, to show, how it should look like !

And with the newest information from this thread, the visibility gets even better than I thought /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

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

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

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 09:38 PM
It's easy to model reflection on armour glass. Just remove the bar and you have perfect reflection model.

Explanation that there's no "reflections" modelled in game is just pure BS. If wanting such thing whole light spectrum, glasses + 1000 more things should be noticed and i think that nobody is serious when talking such things. Who wants to make such things to combat sim?

Just traditional excuses. It's easy to give BS to us.

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:10 PM
Sorry, if it's a bit big /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/190.jpg

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

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

Message Edited on 10/03/0312:10AM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:15 PM
Good stuff Swine and Atze. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:20 PM
nice pics. I now have dreams http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BUMP !

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:28 PM
I hope that the modeller of the very fine Spit XIV will also look at these pics!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:34 PM
CHDT wrote:
- I hope that the modeller of the very fine Spit XIV
- will also look at these pics!
-
-

I doubt it, which is too bad.

BTW, nice pic showing what the view should be./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



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

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 12:39 AM
Great shot and work there Atzebrueck...

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:01 AM
One question regarding your photos: Shouldn't the lights in the background be able to shine through the reflections ?!

It's quite confusing /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ...

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

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

Message Edited on 10/03/0302:07AM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:32 AM
I think Swine was trying to point out the reflections of the bolts on the side canopy frames, and then the sort of ghosted, or double effect the reflection on the bottom canopy frame gives off.

Regardless, the point remains that if one was to look down the Revi parallel to the attitude of the a/c (especially in flight) the infamous canopy bar wouldn't even be a factor. In other words it's NOT in your view, or gun sight. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

Message Edited on 10/02/0305:34PM by IVJG51_Dart

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:44 AM
That is the most conclusive picture I've seen yet Atze. Looks the most correct also seeing as how no other planes have modeled reflection on the glass.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:09 AM
What is clearly marked as reflections in the picture (the rather thick bars OVER the red stripes) cannot be reflections due to the light not shining through ? (Atzebruck already pointed that out).

If you look at that picture and the FW from game however - they look rather similar (at least the area around the sight and the bar does). So in my opinion - the picture serves better as indication of the viewpoint in game being set too high, and subsequently perhaps the APPARENT pitch of the FW not being titled enough forward ?

Why is it that with all these pictures no one has simply sat their butt down on the seat and taken a picture straight thru the REVI ? Olegs picture didn't do that - Cirx pictures doesn't do it - and this one doesn't do it either.

I must say that looking at atze's 'simulated' view where he removes half of the bars - I can see why you guys are so hot and bothered about this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif That shot is almost cruel LOL - unfortunately I don't think it holds.

(Hmmm... I may be wrong about Cirx pictures - I'll go have a look)

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 04:57 AM
You guys are correct about the outer frame area, no question on that.
The important point here is the lower panel bar area.

There are reflections on the outer bars but what is being shown there are the nuts and bolts that are reflecting as well as other areas(there is a transparent reflection around the inner canopy but it is difficult to explain with that photo). The red line shows the inner canopy area which clearly shows the lower area(around the sight) in line with the outer inner area that is in red. I can see from the picture how that might be interpereted as being reflections on the side however those are the outer bar areas(there is reflection in those area as well though). I am going to adjust that photo to make it clearer. I was trying to show an inner area on the canopy frame but I didn't explain as well as I should. Like I said though the important factor here is the lower bar area which would not obstruct the Revi in any way.



Message Edited on 10/03/03 04:37AM by IV_JG51_Swine

Message Edited on 10/03/0304:39AM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 06:10 AM
I hope this is better.

http://images.snapfish.com/3388389523232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2323%3D543%3D%3A9%3B%3 D32325439%3A%3A%3B7%3Bnu0mrj

http://images.snapfish.com/3388389523232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2323%3D543%3D86%3B%3D3 23254377%3A%3C89nu0mrj

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 06:13 AM
Oh yes, the other point to this is the size of the Revi. It seems to be larger in the actual photos that in game.



Message Edited on 10/03/0305:15AM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 08:03 AM
hi,
agree..
good work + studies by the way,

..please remember the problem of pilots seat and hight..
..and in general the wrong low camera line of pilots view in the game..

by the way : is it possible to take the photos in horizontal position of the plane...?

..better view to the front + to the side to get the images



IV_JG51_Swine wrote:
- Oh yes, the other point to this is the size of the
- Revi. It seems to be larger in the actual photos
- that in game.
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 10/03/03 05:15AM by
- IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 11:27 AM
ROSHKO_69.GIAP wrote:
- I must say that looking at atze's 'simulated' view
- where he removes half of the bars - I can see why
- you guys are so hot and bothered about this /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif That
- shot is almost cruel LOL - unfortunately I don't
- think it holds.

Just compare the b/w photo and my screenshots ... IMO they are quite similar. And as you can see in Cirx' and Swine's photos, the "bar" doesn't exist !

The vertical canopyframes seem to be so big, because the photo has been taken from close distance !
Compare the b/w photo with those of cirx and with the very first of Swine. IMO my "screenshots" have one single error: The "red" part is a bit too small, but that's because of FB !
At the moment, the b/w photo is the best reference !

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

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

Message Edited on 10/03/0312:29PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:30 PM
Great Work guys ! Amazing pics !

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:05 PM
At first, I was about to say that Oleg is right, since those last (Flugwerk ?) photos show just the same view as we have in the game.

HOWEVER. The bolts are a giveaway. This is reflection. The real bars are much thinner. Now, if someone has used these or similar photos for building a 3D cockpit, he would make the same mistake as our developers did. If, however, he payed attention to relections (which are hard to recognize, thruth be said), we would have made much thinner (and historically) correct canopy frame.

Thank you all for these grea photos. Even if I wasn't interested in accurate Fw 190 forward view, I'd enjoy them.

Oleg, please examine these photos carefully. Thank you.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:24 PM
The reflection of the outer canopy frame area(struts) is difficult to ascertain with my photos so I would definitely refer to Cirx's shots for that and yes I agree his seem to show that the frame is leaner(I think you are right on with the Atzebrueck). I guess the way to look at this whole deal as was previously stated is to look at the black and white photo as the best reference for the panel bar from the front and the cockpit views for the inner side. With those two shots there should be no question that the famous bar would not exist.

I wish I could get another shot with the view parallel with the aircraft but unfortuantely I am unable to do that at this time but with this evidence alone I really think that the issue has been proven.

I also agree that the size of the strut area and the revi would also depend on the position of the pilot. Good point.



Message Edited on 10/03/0301:43PM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 03:25 PM
It at least proves you can see down the nose.

The view is at least that good and should be that good in game.

I don't see any photos of properly restored fw's that support the view in game.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 04:44 PM
grazzytigger wrote:

"It's easy to model reflection on armour glass. Just remove the bar and you have perfect reflection model.

Explanation that there's no "reflections" modelled in game is just pure BS"


I think some are confusing-- refraction vs. reflection --in their statements.


Just a reminder to be more careful/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 05:39 PM
@ IV_JG51_Swine

One more question: Are you sure that the newly built plane on your picture is equipped with a monolithic armoured glass pane? If double pane insulating glass (with gas between the inner and an outer panes) was used instead, the refraction effect will be much smaller than in the original aircraft. This would explain the large side struts.

So in order to know about the historical value of this picture you must know what kind of glass was used.

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

Kampagne für IL-2 1.2: I-16 - Kampf im Kaukasus (Deutsch) (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/kampagne.html)

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 09:07 PM
Good question plumps. I have no idea on that one. I can try to check into it though. I'm not a glass expert and I should probably try to stay on course with the lower panel bar area which is the main issue here. I'll see what I can find out though. I will be posting some clearer shots of the previous one when I get some time. I am really surprised at the lack of good photos on the older FW190 threads which basically tarnished the image of the individuals researching the actual view. I have also looked at photos posted that were used in modeling the game. They are very different then what we are seeing here.



Message Edited on 10/04/0304:08AM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:43 AM
Keep it going dudes. Hope that Oleg admits his mistake someday and corrects the cockpit view of FW.

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 01:33 AM
http://www.jg51.net/images/fw190pics/finalproof1.jpg


http://www.jg51.net/images/fw190pics/finalproof1makings.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 05:15 AM
One other significant discovery that I have become aware of after this study and these posts was how much I rely on spellcheck and it doesn't work for me in this forum!!! - lol



Message Edited on 10/04/0304:26AM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 08:58 AM
hi,
..sorry again..if possible..
..be careful to the angel of the taken photos...

only way to correct pics: move up the back of the plane to horizontal position..
..
take the photos in horizontal view of pilots eyes at the optimum hight of pilots cheat including the revi hight...

remember: every wrong taken photo shows the wrong angel of pilots view...

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 11:42 AM
starfighter1 wrote
- only way to correct pics: move up the back
- of the plane to horizontal position..

That's not really necessary. All you have to do is hold the camera parallel to the axis of flight. You don't need to have the longitudinal axis of flight parallel to the ground to do this.

And moving up the back tells you nothing about the real flight attitude.

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

Kampagne für IL-2 1.2: I-16 - Kampf im Kaukasus (Deutsch) (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/kampagne.html)



Message Edited on 10/04/0311:46AM by plumps_

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 02:23 PM
This is the best that I can do with a level shot. Unfortunately, it doesn't have a Revi sight installed but you can see that there is no bar area obstructing your view. The metal area that seems to be raised a bit to the right is the base for the Revi sight.

http://images.snapfish.com/3387755923232%7Ffp8%3Enu%3D3232%3E44%3A%3E297%3E23 2344%3A388985ot1lsi




Message Edited on 10/04/0301:48PM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 03:29 PM
hi,

..agree.. but not at all....
..just to get better images ..and please.. if possible outside of the hall..to more clear cockpit view at daylight...

..maybe Cirx can do the job ?

looking forward to more professional pics...thanks to all doing this for the FW fans..
plumps_ wrote:
- starfighter1 wrote
-- only way to correct pics: move up the back
-- of the plane to horizontal position..
-
- That's not really necessary. All you have to do is
- hold the camera parallel to the axis of flight. You
- don't need to have the longitudinal axis of flight
- parallel to the ground to do this.
-
- And moving up the back tells you nothing about the
- real flight attitude.
-

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 04:09 PM
Boys, you did an outstanding job, we are now in the position to prove that Oleg was takling B.S. all the time.

I mean this is just lame and very, very disappointing. How can he let us Luftwaffe guys play with such disadvantages for years?????? Is this normal? Can this be sane?

Oleg, listen....i dont give a damn if you change it or not...I will still be able to blow ANY red plane from the sky (while flying a Fw, of course).
Anyway, don't you feel that it's time for some fair-play? Just, you know, for the heck of it?
And while we're at it, could you also correct the ammo loads for the 109s?
Thanks in advance.

The fact that we succesfully fly with the BARS for so long honours us, because it simply shows that we are DAMN good pilots, not to speak of our TREMENDOUS shooting skills http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


http://www.noscuba.de/pictures/Avatar01.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 04:18 PM
Thanks for the replys but please lets try to keep this as civil as possible. I know its frustrating but lets not get into a heated debate here(I'm guilty of that as well). Mr. Maddox has put together one hell of a sim. Lets not forget that.

Cirx has already done an outstanding job! SALUTE!(nice fellow too by the way).

Starfighter, if I owned a 190 I could probably do it but until then(if I win the lottery) I can't. Its not that easy to get a 190 moved out of a museum. However, in the future there will be a few actual flying refurbished and rebuilt models. Once they are completed I am sure we will be able to get even better shots. Like I said though the evidence clearly shows that there no bar in the area. That is the priority. I really can't do any more tha I have done for now. I am going to visit the museum again next month. I will try to do some more then.

If you are questioning the credibility of these shots then you should look at the photos used for the actual modeling of the game and compare them with these.

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvsld&tpage=1



Message Edited on 10/04/0303:43PM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 04:21 PM
In that list pic of the fw with the revi mounted in it, I can clearly see a small bar there above the green line drawn.

There is a bar, but it is much smaller than in game, and there is no way that bar could block that revi when looking through it down the nose.

If Oleg came in here he'd probably say these photos only show he is right. Even though everyone here looking at them totally disagrees with him.

These photos mostly show he should account for refraction in that thick glass for the sake of game play.

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 05:08 PM
I'm going to re-post this simply because I get the feeling that no one has bothered to actually read this. I know it's a bit blurry, but it doesn't take much to read it. This, in conjunction with all the photos already provided is enough evidence in my opinion. It's time to start listening to the actual real reports taken from those who FLEW THE REAL PLANE during the war. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Paragraph describing the Gun Sight and views. This is taken right from the report given by the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford after putting Oberleutnant Armin Faber's captured Fw 190 A-3 through full evaluation trials in 1942.

http://www.jg51.net/images/sightingview.jpg


Cheers,
Lawn Dart
Operations Officer, IV/JG51


Message Edited on 10/04/0309:09AM by IVJG51_Dart

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:09 PM
WOW!!!....Man that says it all right there bud........

This is another photo that I took of "Yellow 9"...Rio Hondo
Museum. In this photo you can see the the lower bar area would probably not interfer with anything even if it was a large size.


http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/9ed425d5/bc/My+Photos-FW190photos/__hr_/PDRM066740.jpg?bcUZwf_AWd_Oqlou
http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/9ed425d5/bc/My+Photos-FW190photos/__hr_/PDRM066740mkings.jpg?bcUZwf_AdfRrGDM.



Message Edited on 10/04/0305:39PM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 07:18 PM
It's greet!

dear oleg,IL2FB must leave nothing to be desired!

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 08:38 PM
CrackFerret wrote:
- In that list pic of the fw with the revi mounted in
- it, I can clearly see a small bar there above the
- green line drawn.

HI ferret. Of course there is a bar. It's because the picture is nose up. you cansee cowling and nose behind the window(it's just so awful dark.). It's not horizontal. It's obvious. That's why OM's pics are not applicable for the forward view. He has the bar in his picture because he's looking straight on it. If he would sit level to the pilot/revi there wouldn't be this "phenomenon" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Salute to all here !

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 10:19 PM
Is this debate still going on?

Has not 1C/Maddox Games not admitted that there is a mistake in the modelling of the pilot's view. Unbelievable.

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 10:57 PM
Great work guys. I totally agree with your point about the visibility, and the way you handle it (providing countless pictures and proofs).

I hope we will be able to see the result of your work in this sim.

Nic

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 11:21 PM
nicolas10 wrote:
- Great work guys. I totally agree with your point
- about the visibility, and the way you handle it
- (providing countless pictures and proofs).
-
- I hope we will be able to see the result of your
- work in this sim.
-
- Nic
-
-

Thanks nicolas10....
I fixed the other photos so they should work now. If this is accurate it wouldn't matter what size the bar would be. Your line of sight wouldn't be affected anyway. This is from a photo that I took in Rio Hondo of "Yellow 9".

http://images.snapfish.com/3388536%3B23232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2323%3D544%3D559%3D3 232544468764nu0mrj

http://images.snapfish.com/3388536%3B23232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2323%3D544%3D559%3D3 232544468%3B%3A6nu0mrj

http://images.snapfish.com/3388536%3B23232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2323%3D544%3D566%3D3 232544475933nu0mrj
Quote from Wings of the Luftwaffe by Captin Eric Brown describing the captured 190, p.81, "The sighting view when sitting comfortably in the normal position, was somewhat better than that of the Spitfire owing to the nose-down attitude of the FW 190 in flight." If that is accurate your view should probably be even better than what we see here.



Message Edited on 10/05/0302:53PM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 05:06 AM
Yea, the bar is there. I said it shouldn't block the revi at all due to refraction.

Oleg has a 3d cockpit with no refraction and that's why the bar blocks it.

If he modeled or adjusted for refraction it would resemble these pics posted in this thread.

The in game view sucks horribly the way it is now.

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 03:29 PM
bump

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

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

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 03:37 PM
bump ,and waiting for OLEG here..

..enjoy fly,enjoy life..
http://www.chnace.org/chn_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 06:13 PM
Bump /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 05:44 AM
hi,

by the way ..here a link to some pics of Flight Sim Show in Birmingham ..

http://www.angels19.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/flightsimshow/thumbnails.html

..have a look at the coming P-51...

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 06:40 AM
BUMP ! any new comments from the developers so far ?

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 07:02 AM
we can hope they see this thread...as for comments, I wouldn't hold my breath /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 07:25 AM
They can't say they don't see it eh ? But from holding my breath....I'm green already.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 11:31 AM
I have a feeling the priority is going to be the next sim - BOB. However, the earlier model FWs were flown by JG26 but not until later after the BOB was considered over. I guess it will all be determined by the time period of the sim. I have also seen alot of talk about whining and it causing them to make paid add ons. That cracks me up. Thats about making money. I don't mind that though, I think with paid add ons we would definitey count on receiving updates. I would fork out $40.00 on a fixed 190. No problem. Hey and on a good note if your a Luftwaffe pilot whatever aircraft you fly won't really matter since you will only have fuel to fight for 30 seconds over England - lol(kidding).......

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 11:37 AM
in another thread (general discussion http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yxvsx&tpage=2&direction=0) I caught this one up:

"I wonder if the 190 will have a bar.. "
No 190 in the BoB! Problem disappears!


This can mean two things:

a) no fw190 at all (the fw came to late.)
b) they fix it for the aftermath battles....

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 12:11 PM
hi,
question ? ..any 3dparty available to fix it in the running game ?
any ideas ?

..1.C Maddox isn't interest to fix so long....
...they lost face enough up to now....

IV_JG51_Swine wrote:
- I have a feeling the priority is going to be the
- next sim - BOB. However, the earlier model FWs were
- flown by JG26 but not until later after the BOB was
- considered over. I guess it will all be determined
- by the time period of the sim. I have also seen
- alot of talk about whining and it causing them to
- make paid add ons. That cracks me up. Thats about
- making money. I don't mind that though, I think
- with paid add ons we would definitey count on
- receiving updates. I would fork out $40.00 on a
- fixed 190. No problem. Hey and on a good note if
- your a Luftwaffe pilot whatever aircraft you fly
- won't really matter since you will only have fuel to
- fight for 30 seconds over England -
- lol(kidding).......
-
-

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 12:21 PM
Would mean that somehow knows how to debug the Code and where to look for the "bars" ....

I remember this happened to Falcon 4.0 back then. Maybe with the start of their new project one could solve it as they seem to start from scratch and maybe dump pieces pf code... but this is rather unlikely....

After all with the rise of the polycount the "old" cockpit models are useless then.

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 12:25 PM
do you realy think that the next 2005 sim will only be a 1940 hame ?!?!? serious ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
i would think it will be a "western Front" sim from 1940-1945

EDIT:
unfortunatly i was totaly wrong /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

"The Battle of Britain (working title), following in the steps of IL-2, will be packed with even more historical realism and will use a new engine, a dynamic campaign system and new weather effects. It will take place in 1940 during the Battle of Britain and will allow players to fly for the British, German or Italian air forces."

so, no Fw in 2005 sim /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


Message Edited on 10/06/0311:48AM by JG53Frankyboy

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 12:38 PM
JaBo_HH--Gotcha wrote:
- in another thread (general discussion
- I caught this one up:
-
- "I wonder if the 190 will have a bar.. "
- No 190 in the BoB! Problem disappears!
-
-
- This can mean two things:
-
- a) no fw190 at all (the fw came to late.)
- b) they fix it for the aftermath battles....
-
-

I go with 'a'.

Is this an admission that the Il-2/FB Fw190 cockpit view is wrong?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif It also means that the other cockpit pilot views are wrong, but the fw was the worst.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



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

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 12:38 PM
Oleg you just suck, sorry but befor i leave this game, i just wanted to let u know this.

And i dont care if i got bann or what ever becouse i dont care playing or talking about your freaking game anylonger.

In my eyes you and your whole team sucked and faild.
You Team and your self was my first contact to russia.
And i realy got confirmed in all that stuff i heard about russia and russian behave.

I was forced as a child to live under your Red russian flag befor my parents was "gone" with me to the west in the early 80s.
I m also sure only the A-Bomb was hold your back to occupate the rest of Europe.

Greetings to Stalin.


Deft kick up backside as this imbecile gets banned from forum


Message Edited on 10/06/0304:26PM by EURO_Snoopy

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 01:07 PM
hi,
sorry..pipgig ..that saying corrups the points...
..your feeling has nothing to do with 1C. Maddox...

and the wrong design of FW gunsight view ...

and serious critic of developer design...



pipgig wrote:
- Oleg you just suck, sorry but befor i leave this
- game, i just wanted to let u know this.
-
- And i dont care if i got bann or what ever becouse i
- dont care playing or talking about your freaking
- game anylonger.
-
- ............?????

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 01:14 PM
Calm down PigPig. We'Re all upset as our beloved plane was crippled.
I just wonder what they do if in the new sim there's another plane that's bugged. Will they remove it then ?
So in the end we have "il2:Forgotten scouts" (scheduled for 2020 q3 and we all fly Fi-156 with handgun fired through window ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It's sad but it's true. I still got no problem with the fact that they will concentrate on 1940/1941. It's just more detailed for this period and the game will be more competitive. FOr us FW190 Fans it's just a bad period http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Clever solution eh ? If you got a problem, erm REMOVE it....



Disclaimer
No forward view was obscured during creation of this post....

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 02:18 PM
BUMP...waiting for Oleg..

Dear Oleg,all men at here are not Traitors,they are Completists.

there only one reason let's waiting for u,we love FB,we love the sim,we love flying...

if u have times,give those guys some words.

even there not any changes..

urs FANS...@6
the FB movie "Salvation"'s maker,a FB pilot from CHINA.

..enjoy fly,enjoy life..
http://www.chnace.org/chn_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 04:20 PM
IV_JG51_Swine wrote:
- I have a feeling the priority is going to be the
- next sim - BOB. However, the earlier model FWs were
- flown by JG26 but not until later after the BOB was
- considered over. I guess it will all be determined
- by the time period of the sim. I have also seen
- alot of talk about whining and it causing them to
- make paid add ons. That cracks me up. Thats about
- making money. I don't mind that though, I think
- with paid add ons we would definitey count on
- receiving updates. I would fork out $40.00 on a
- fixed 190. No problem. Hey and on a good note if
- your a Luftwaffe pilot whatever aircraft you fly
- won't really matter since you will only have fuel to
- fight for 30 seconds over England -
- lol(kidding).......
-
-


Yeah I've seen the posts where people complain like crazy with any mention of a paid add-on. Cracks me up. The larger portion of this community doesn't seem to appreciate the efforts of this development crew and what they've actually given us - the best WWII online (or offline) sim that has ever come down the pike, with continual support, free patches and upgrades and the occasional paid add-on for a meager $40.00 (same price for the game itself). That, my fellow flight sim junkies, is a PHENOMENAL deal any way you cut it, period!!

I (as does most of my squad) come from years of flying over in Warbirds, the granddaddy of online sims and next to AirWarrior, are THE pioneers of multiplayer WWII simming. They have the same thing over there, patches, upgrades, new add-ons of planes, etc. However the difference is you pay $25.00 per month for that! Or, as in my case you started flying with them before it was flat rate per month and paid $9.99 per month PLUS $2.00 an HOUR for the pleasure of virtually flying these birds! So everyone, take a look at those numbers and then take a deep breath and realize what a wonderful sim Oleg and Co have provided us. We've got the most cutting edge sim of its kind ever, and to be asked to purchase an add-on now and then is nothing when you look at all that we get from it. And after all, they DO have to make some money. It's called capitalism. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

To PigPig, and all others who feel this way. Please do the courtesy to the rest of us who are trying very hard to provide this development team with new information re: this problem and don't post such discourteous, unbecoming, and completely anti-productive rubbish here. If you really feel you need to express yourselves in such a slanderous manner take it to the other sandbox where the rest of the immature kids play, the GD forum. We don't need your brand of help here.


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

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 04:27 PM
Now, I still don't get it. The FW just had a $hitty forward view in real-life, accept it!

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 04:50 PM
Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:
- Now, I still don't get it. The FW just had a $hitty
- forward view in real-life, accept it!
-
- 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
- 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
- shall be judged: and with what
-
- measure ye mete, it shall be
-
- measured to you again.
-
-
- <a
- href="http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index
- .php"><img
- src="http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templa
- tes/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif" border "0"></a>

Man I'm tired of hearing people say this. It is a pure myth!

Again, direct quotes taken from the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford report on their full evaluation of a captured 190 in 1942 -


"The view for search from the Fw 190 is the best that has yet been seen by this Unit. The cockpit hood is of moulded Plexiglass and offers an unrestricted view all round."

"The good all-round view from the aircraft, <font size="4">particularly over the nose</font>, makes the Fw 190 very suitable for low flying and ground strafing."

"The sighting view is approximately half a ring better than that from the Spitfire. The all-round search view is the best that has been seen from any aircraft flown by this Unit."


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

Message Edited on 10/06/03 08:51AM by IVJG51_Dart

Message Edited on 10/06/0310:52AM by IVJG51_Dart

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 07:21 PM
Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:
"Now, I still don't get it. The FW just had a $hitty forward view in real-life, accept it! "

I presume that you have been inside the cockpit of a real 190, and have pictures to prove to us that your opinion is valid and researched. Please post your pictures so we can put this issue to rest.




http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 07:49 PM
Great pictures. I was wondering is the blue paint in the cockpit orginal? Thanks

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 09:20 PM
That would really suck if the next sim only had planes from 1940,

I thought fw190 were around in 1941. I really hope BOB becomes more than just THE "BOB" just like IL2 sturmovik became more than just a ground attack simulation.

If refraction is modeled and oleg uses the exact same 3d cockpit model the view should be much better still.

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 10:08 PM
Hopefully the pilot's view will be better modelled in the BoB game.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



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

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 10:25 PM
Well, if what I've heard is true (and granted I don't claim to have looked into BoB much since the announcement) and we're left with a/c from 1940 you can forget about having the Fw. We'll see in 2005 what's happened.

As for now, we've got a fantastic sim that just needs some things tweaked here and there. BoB is roughly two years out, so one would hope that in that time we can get the Fw views fixed by then. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 10:52 PM
Relax children. Oleg may be stuburn when it comes to the 190 forward view but he's not stupid.
It would be foolish busness wise to just limit few aircraft to just 1940 and below in BOB.
I can probably,in fact I am certain there will be a wide range of airplanes avaliable right up to 1945.
And if Oleg is reading the forums he will know better.

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 10:54 PM
Yes Dart, but the FB Spit has the same problem as the Fw though not as bad. We can only hope./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



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

ZG77_Nagual
10-06-2003, 11:06 PM
Guys, I think it is time to let it rest. This topic may have fallen prey to the bad atmosphere that dominates much of this board, or the developers may have decided to do something about it and are just keeping quiet. In any case I think we can say the point is made and let this thread go before anymore posts like pigpig's accumilate.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 05:46 AM
Yes, let it rest.

-

MG15120 wrote:
- Nothing really became contentious until AFTER "the
- GREAT ONE" decided to treat his customers as
- uneducated dorks.
-
- After that happened a few times in different
- threads things were bound to degrade regarding the
- opinions of OM.
-
- This is an issue that should be corrected.Lack of
- willingness to correct it is a bad thing.

That is one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen! (There are some others in here that are right with it. pipgig's is definitely there.)

I would be willing to bet my $100 to anyone's $1 that Oleg has been treated much, much worse than he has treated any individual in this community, or this community in part or in whole.

Now, as some have finally seen, (others still cannot get it through their head), that treatment of Oleg has pushed him away to a great degree.

Keep it up you imbeciles. Maybe they will even shut this forum down.

I wonder how some of this crap is even allowed to be here?!?!?

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#4A535C">

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 05:57 AM
BTW, some of you think 'your' picture/s proves everthing you say?

HERE is a picture for you:

http://151.164.128.17/cyop/hold/misfits_cirx_HUH_.jpg

Now, what does that prove? (I could try and make it prove 'something', could'nt I?)

(Sorry, Cirx, no insult intended. But, these 'Oleg is wrong' and 'Oleg sucks' threads are pathetic.)

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#4A535C">

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 06:05 AM
Just so 'you' know, here is a thread I was going to make ealier. I decided not to make becuase, what for. (But, I saved it just in case.)

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

(Post title.)
There have been a great deal of FW-190 threads and posts...

>

why not mine?

-

QUOTE: Cirx...
"I presume that you have been inside the cockpit of a real 190, and have pictures to prove to us that your opinion is valid and researched. Please post your pictures so we can put this issue to rest."

(Sorry, Cirx, but I will borrow yours, which, BTW, is your sig.) (Well, 'it' is 'kind of' your sig. I 'altered it a little. No insult intended.)

http://151.164.128.17/cyop/hold/misfits_cirx_HUH_.jpg


Hmmm.

It seems to me that Oleg has given this issue a great deal of attention. More so that necessary. Definitely, more so than most other issues.

'You' can flame me all you want. It is of no consequence to me. However, know, that in the past, I have said it could be changed, and would not bother me at all. Give the 190 a better view. After all, this is only a sim/game, which happens to be 'stuck' on a computer (so to speak). Maybe it will get changed in the near future. Good luck!

-

Cirx, this is not an attack towards you, but, hey, you left yourself wide open with that little paragraph, and the picture right under it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif (I wonder why none of the FW-190 detractors have done that.)

-

Bottom line:
'This' has been done way past reasonable. If Oleg changes it, or not, there is nothing else that can be said or done in regards to it. IMO, it should be put to rest. (Yes, contrary to what some people think, 'I' can have an opinion on that.)

-

Officially, for the record, though, since this is my only thread ever on this subject, Oleg, would you give the 190 a better view, please. Thank you.
(Also, for the record, I am not pro or con LW.)

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#4A535C">

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 06:05 AM
RealKill wrote:
- (Sorry, Cirx, no insult intended. But, these 'Oleg
- is wrong' and 'Oleg sucks' threads are pathetic.)

But it IS incredibly insulting. The thread is high on research and low on whining, which is about the most you could ever ask for as far as constructive posts go at ubi.com. Just because some kid comes in and craps on the thread with some rant doesn't suddenly invalidate the time-consuming research others have done, nor does it give you the right to come into the thread and drop equally worthless comments. Be careful what you preach, else certain individuals will be given ammo to shut down ANY thread they don't like.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 06:10 AM
A.K.Davis,

Unfortunately, the person that 'truely' winds up getting insulted in these threads is Oleg. They always contain anti-Oleg remarks that are totally uncalled for.

Also, i honestly think Cirx is intelligent enough to see my point without taking it personally.

EDIT: BTW, Davis, when you replied to me it was to my first two posts. Please, quote my "worthless" comments you refer to.

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#4A535C">

Message Edited on 10/07/0312:18AM by RealKill

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 06:17 AM
@Realkill:
- (Sorry, Cirx, but I will borrow yours, which, BTW,
- is your sig.) (Well, 'it' is 'kind of' your sig. I
- 'altered it a little. No insult intended.)

Read through the thread again please. Think. then post.
then ask yourself the following questions:

1) Will Cirx have changed the pilots-seat position for this picture ? (seems kind of souvenir to me and I envy the guy for having had the chance...)

2) is refraction visible in this picture ?


Take a note. Read through the Thread again and take some notes each time you see the word "refraction" and "forward view" and "reflection".

Then take some 20 minutes to dig up some old threads with a lot of detailed pictures (although the pictures in this thread provide enough evidence..)

Then make youself comfortable and rethink your post. Thank you for your effort. I wish you a nice day..

----------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
No forward view was obscured during the creation of this post...
----------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 06:25 AM
Gotcha, you are implying I did not read this, or other threads, or that i did not understand it, and/or that I do not understand some things, such as "refraction". Simply put, and to cut it short, you are 'talking down' to me with those implications.

You see, that is what is wrong with these threads. The underlying tone is ALWAYS negative. Sometimes serverely so. (Hell, actually 'the tone' is usually in 'your face'!)

Also, you have made one of my points. (Others have said the same.)

JaBo_HH--Gotcha wrote:
- Then take some 20 minutes to dig up some old threads
- with a lot of detailed pictures...

20 minute my a@@. I could be here for days rereading 190 threads and posts.

Sorry, but there is nothing for me to rethink.

I wish you a nice day, also. Sincerely.

EDIT:
Oh, how did I forget THIS? - I would like to be in Cirx's picture in his place.

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#4A535C">

Message Edited on 10/07/0312:33AM by RealKill

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 06:38 AM
@RealKill:
I'll contact you directly ok ? No reason to flood this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

----------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
No forward view was obscured during the creation of this post...
----------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 06:38 AM
I always thought from historical documents I keep seeing posted here that the spit actually had a slightly worse view for deflection shooting compared to the fw.

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 08:13 AM
CrackFerret wrote:
- I always thought from historical documents I keep
- seeing posted here that the spit actually had a
- slightly worse view for deflection shooting compared
- to the fw.
-
Which doesn't help much here. We neither have a SPitfire in here nor do we compare it. I think the FW-Forward View supporters want some improvement.

Most of us wont discuss BIAS or political crap. It's all about the one and only plane we like to use. If this SIM wouldn't be great already we all wouldn't give a damn and instead have moved on. Unfortunately this Product (FB) shows the biggest potential and yet this small imperfection spoils the fun for all these FW-lovers.
If all other pilots out there would appreciate this and maybe ignore some stupid rants in between the lines, which are born from frustration and exhaustion (by repeating and investigating facts etc.) or sheer stupidity.
If the moderators would have kept track of stupid accusations (I am not inncent either...) and maybe reacted more harsh to where insulting had started we would have a better situation right now.
From technical POV the Forward View is not ok.
If it's no problem to discuss turn rates, climbrates etc. for various planes by comparing technical data then from TECHNICAL POV it's also correct to discuss the Forward View.
If someone (in this case the developers) claim to try to get as close as possible to the so called real-thing as they can they would have to listen to these studies.

If the developers appreciate INPUT from guys giving them Engine Data about DB-Engines (from BF109) that it's also right to listen to such input.

----------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
No forward view was obscured during the creation of this post...
----------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 08:16 AM
hi,
@RealKill..

1)remember ..it's the start position..Cirx is sitting in
the FW 190

2) it's well known that the forward view in start position
was bad

3) I told ..many many.. times here arround to take pics of
pilots view in horizontal position of the plane (by move
up the back)..in normal daylight...and by using the
correct angel of the camera lens ..(remember the fix of
hight of pilot seat and the revi hight to prepare
convergence ofthe weapons/gunsight view.)..
this point every pilot is doing before start with
EVERY PLANE(look at original user manual) compare to his
his individual seize and plane

4) I can give you pics of other planes with wrong taken
photos of pilots forward view and everyone who has never
placed in a warbird (or other) will believe it.

5) also we have a general problem with the hight of the
camera view in the game engine

6) re to refraction problems + more in frame
design/revi/seat hight design of the 3DMax background
design of FW190 + other planes

...some more points in old threads ..


here a pic of original gunsight view of P-51 to show the problems...in real and in game..(re by the problems of wrong cam view + 3D design)
real is real and game is game ..but there is a way to fix it..to better way + more to closed real things ..at many planes..
so dear fans of IL2/FB..let's talk in serious way to do things better now and in future sims....

The discussion about whining is stupid and kiddy...

developers have to do a look to more closer things ..even in coming design of new combatsims...

Sorry.. this discussion ..pro + contra is on a very old design level in this running game at this point..PILOTS VIEW + GUNSIGHT VIEW..

and we have to thank Cirx and other to show us more real things at this point...than the developer did in the past..


http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/Pics/Military/EarlyYears/11.jpg





RealKill wrote:
- BTW, some of you think 'your' picture/s proves
- everthing you say?
-
- HERE is a picture for you:
--
- Now, what does that prove? (I could try and make it
- prove 'something', could'nt I?)
-
- (Sorry, Cirx, no insult intended. But, these 'Oleg
- is wrong' and 'Oleg sucks' threads are pathetic.)
-

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 09:23 AM
To whom it may concern: (Clarification)

"Keep it up you imbeciles. Maybe they will even shut this forum down.
I wonder how some of this crap is even allowed to be here?!?!?"

Target = overly derogatory posters. 'Moderation' is in order.

"these 'Oleg is wrong' and 'Oleg sucks' threads are pathetic"
would be better read...
these threads that DEGENERATE into 'Oleg sucks' threads are pathetic
(Unfortunately, that is how these threads always turn out. Even the ones with the best intentions. That is why many say just to put it to rest.)

"Now, what does that prove?"

Nothing!

And, 'you' have to expect, and accept, that some people will think the same about your pic/s (and/or words).

-

I am not a supporter of the FW-190 forward view change. At least, not in the 'fanatic' sense. (Sorry, the use of that word is not meant to be an insult.) However, I would like to see it changed. The FW-190 is too big a part of this sim for this argument to continue.

Whether 'you' feel it is right, wrong, or are indifferent to it, it is a small concession for Oleg to make.

However, 'I' can understand how some feel this is a non-issue. After all, just talking about views, there are other planes that could be debated, but they do not have hundreds of posts about them, and have not recieved the same amount of attention from Maddox.

My personal opinion is that the 190 has the worst view of all of them, though.

We (they/Oleg&Co.) are limited by software/hardware. That, and the "worst view" aspect of the 190, is enough for me. 'I' feel it should be enough for Oleg, also.

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#4A535C">

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 01:15 PM
hi,
@RealKill..
if You are not longer interest in this points.. You can leave ..it's up to You...it's a open forum to many views..

.. one question..to whom it may concern..

Do You thing that we get a progress in combatsims while we ignore always old design mistakes..or would it be better to change old 'views' in our mind...

it's time to become more professional in this old problems.. since PC-combatsims came to the market....

..by the way the LockOn team is going better ways in this design problems to desktop users...


RealKill wrote:
- To whom it may concern: (Clarification)
-
- "Keep it up you imbeciles. Maybe they will even shut
- this forum down.
- I wonder how some of this crap is even allowed to be
- here?!?!?"
-

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 04:58 PM
Realkill, I see you are on a crusade to make a point that these threads always degenerate into anti-Oleg posts. Well, simply not the case with this thread. It seems to me though, that what you're doing in here is not constructive, but potentially inflammatory and may push this thread into the very thing you're complaining about (and what we all don't want). Just food for thought. I'd say it was safe to say that most everyone here doesn't feel any great animosity towards Oleg. We appreciate him and all he has given this community with this sim. Yes you have the occasional moron like PigPig come in and say something extremely stupid. Happens on every forum. He's been banned from the boards because of it (thanks Snoopy, BTW/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ).

Most of us are doing lots of research on this subject and have taken the time to politely and constructively post our findings and conclusions here. Lots of our free time goes into this simply because we love this plane and this sim, and hope that we can lend a hand in helping make this particular bird even more historically accurate in this fantastic sim. We're not on a witch hunt here.

As to the pic in Cirx's sig that you are using as evidence that the current in-game views are correct. Your sight lines that you drew exemplifying Cirx's line of sight show that yes indeed he would be looking parallel to the ground and not the attitude of the a/c. That is simply because the bird is on the ground with its tail down. That is not the in-flight view the pilot has. All you've done is prove what it was like to try to taxi the Fw around, which was notoriously bad because you couldn't see over the nose sticking way up in the air, just like the P-47, the Spitfire, and most other tail draggers. If you really have taken the time to objectively read this thread then you will have seen the quotes taken from the report given by the Air Fighting Unit at Duxford after they had put a captured 190 through full evaluation trials in the summer of 1942. If not I invite you to go back up the thread and find them. They are quite eye opening.


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

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 05:02 PM
Cirx wrote:
-
- Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:
- "Now, I still don't get it. The FW just had a $hitty
- forward view in real-life, accept it! "
-
- I presume that you have been inside the cockpit of a
- real 190, and have pictures to prove to us that your
- opinion is valid and researched. Please post your
- pictures so we can put this issue to rest.
-
-
-
-
-
- http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG

It is in your sig! you sit in the cockpit, do you see how sh1tty small the front window is from your point of view? the side and rear view should be okay or very good. I've sat in more cockpits then you can imagine (Including tail draggers) and often, the view forward is the least view. But, if I see you sitting in the cockpit like that, this should be one of the worse forward views ever.

Really, how big is the space between the windscreen and the dashboard? It looks like half the heigth of your head (no insult meant) That's pretty small if I may say so.



1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

Message Edited on 10/07/0305:05PM by Platypus_1.JaVA

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 05:13 PM
Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:
- Cirx wrote:
--
-- Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:
-- "Now, I still don't get it. The FW just had a $hitty
-- forward view in real-life, accept it! "
--
-- I presume that you have been inside the cockpit of a
-- real 190, and have pictures to prove to us that your
-- opinion is valid and researched. Please post your
-- pictures so we can put this issue to rest.
--
--
--
--
--
-- http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG
-
- It is in your sig! you sit in the cockpit, do you
- see how sh1tty small the front window is from your
- point of view? the side and rear view should be okay
- or very good. I've sat in more cockpits then you can
- imagine (Including tail draggers) and often, the
- view forward is the least view. But, if I see you
- sitting in the cockpit like that, this should be one
- of the worse forward views ever.
-
- Really, how big is the space between the windscreen
- and the dashboard? It looks like half the heigth of
- your head (no insult meant) That's pretty small if I
- may say so.


Direct quotes taken from the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford report on their full evaluation of a captured 190 in 1942 -

"The view for search from the Fw 190 is the best that has yet been seen by this Unit. The cockpit hood is of moulded Plexiglass and offers an unrestricted view all round."

"The good all-round view from the aircraft, <font size="4">particularly over the nose</font>, makes the Fw 190 very suitable for low flying and ground strafing."

"The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, is about half a ring better than that from the Spitfire. The all-round search view is the best that has been seen from any aircraft flown by this Unit."


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

Direct quotes taken from the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford report on their full evaluation of a captured 190 in 1942 -

"The view for search from the Fw 190 is the best that has yet been seen by this Unit. The cockpit hood is of moulded Plexiglass and offers an unrestricted view all round."

"The good all-round view from the aircraft, <font size="4">particularly over the nose</font>, makes the Fw 190 very suitable for low flying and ground strafing."

"The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, is about half a ring better than that from the Spitfire. The all-round search view is the best that has been seen from any aircraft flown by this Unit."


Message Edited on 10/07/03 09:37AM by IVJG51_Dart

Message Edited on 10/07/0309:54AM by IVJG51_Dart

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 05:35 PM
I posted a pic of this paragraph dealing with the gun sight views from the Duxford report of 1942, but I'm not sure some of you have been able to read it due to it being a bit blurry. So to make it easier I've re-written it here.

------------------------
Sighting View
27. The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, is about a half ring better than that from a Spitfire. The view downwards from the centre of the sight graticule to the edge of the reflector plate holder, is about 5 degrees. This view is not obtained by elevating the guns (and consequently the sight) relative to the line of flight, but is entirely due to the attitude of the aircraft in flight, which is nose down. In terms of deflection allowance the view downwards is 160 mph. And this enables the pilot to sight and fire at angle of attack as follows:-

Target Speed: Agle of Attack:
200 mph. 60?
300 mph. 40?
400 mph. 25?
------------------------

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

Direct quotes taken from the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford report on their full evaluation of a captured 190 in 1942 -

"The view for search from the Fw 190 is the best that has yet been seen by this Unit. The cockpit hood is of moulded Plexiglass and offers an unrestricted view all round."

"The good all-round view from the aircraft, <font size="4">particularly over the nose</font>, makes the Fw 190 very suitable for low flying and ground strafing."

"The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, is about half a ring better than that from the Spitfire. The all-round search view is the best that has been seen from any aircraft flown by this Unit."


Message Edited on 10/07/0309:38AM by IVJG51_Dart

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 05:37 PM
Well guys, I was away for a couple of days and am checking in. Please gentlemen, lets keep this topic flooded with good information and evidence to prove it. Remember, they may make a BOB sim in 2005 but I bet that later they will produce a European(Western front sim) as well as every other arena possible. Eventually, the 190 will come back into play even if it is not in BOB. Lets try to put enough good information together so that hopefully whenever it does raise its head again its done the way we would hope it should be. This is a great sim and I believe that the next will be even better and so on and so on. We need to change the tarnished image of the 190 supporters, this can only be accomplished with providing good evidence through research in a polite manner. Thanks again for all of the CONSTRUCTIVE posts whether either in support or not in support of the current 190 view.
SALUTE!,
IV/JG51_Swine



M

Message Edited on 10/07/0304:45PM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 05:48 PM
As I noted in a post at the top of the page, the Spitfire also has this problem of a "bar" imposing on the pilots forward view, though not as bad as in the Fw.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



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

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 05:58 PM
Yeah Milo, saw that. Hopefully they will correct it too.

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

Direct quotes taken from the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford report on their full evaluation of a captured 190 in 1942 -

"The view for search from the Fw 190 is the best that has yet been seen by this Unit. The cockpit hood is of moulded Plexiglass and offers an unrestricted view all round."

"The good all-round view from the aircraft, <font size="4">particularly over the nose</font>, makes the Fw 190 very suitable for low flying and ground strafing."

"The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, is about half a ring better than that from the Spitfire. The all-round search view is the best that has been seen from any aircraft flown by this Unit."

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 06:23 PM
hi,

..and what's Your opinion to the P-51 view ?


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

MiloMorai wrote:
- Yes Dart, but the FB Spit has the same problem as
- the Fw though not as bad. We can only hope.<img
--

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 06:43 PM
Hi Realkill

I enjoyed your posts and I can see your point. There are many discrepancies in many cockpits in this game. More than a few plane models also feature oddities. But these do for the most part go unnoticed because they are small, or does not affect one's enjoyment of the plane in the game. If one was on a whitchhunt then one coult tear this game apart from the starting point of the claim of historical accuracy.

But that is not what brings us here to this thread. The mistakes in the 190's forward view does in fact impede one's enjoyment of this plane. Very much so. In a flight simulator no other view is quite as important as the forward gunsight view.

If it was the case that the 190 indeed had the bottom part of the gunsight obscured by a bar, and that the windscreen struts were in fact so thick, I would have been only too happy. I would have flown the plane in the game because if the real pilots had to deal with this problem, so should I.

And so it was that when I first started working with the 190, I decided to take some pictures to prove to myself at least the Oleg was right and that this matter can be attributed to over-exitement and general "luftwhining".

I was frankly amazed, once inside the cockpit, at both how accurate the overall layout and "feel" was, and also by how completely at odd's the game-view forward was to real life.

And that brought us all here. Since my initial photo's, many others have contributed their pictures and research and so far nothing has come close to proving the game's view as correct. And so I have been contacted by a very nice engineer from South Africa, currently in the states, who know's Oleg personally and has ofered to act as intermediary to try and get this issue out of the corner it is in and onto the schedule of 1C. I am still waiting to hear from that, but I have agreed to, for the moment, stop posting here. The post by Platypus however, waranted a response I though, although now I see I was wrong to do that since he was obviously trolling.

I thus invite you to my website at http://www.triplane.net for a look at the photographic shoot and more pictures than my signature, which was taken at angles anyway and could thus not be used for proving anything else than the fact that I was, indeed, inside the plane itself.

But more than that I cannot add to this debate , at least until my schematics and plans arrive from Europe and Texas.And even then I may not post since this topic is once again spiraling downwards into the mire that has become a trademark of this forum.

To Milo, Swine, Lawndart and all the others that have shown such keen interest and come up with such interesting documents and pictures, Salute to you! I hope to keep corresponding with you for a long time still.My email addy is peter@triplane.net and please send me a mail if you havent already so we can stay in touch.

S! all and thank you for the interest.

Sincerely
Cirx

http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 06:49 PM
I completely understand your position Cirx. Thanks for your input and for your outstanding research. I will keep in contact with you. I look forward to hearing about any new information and if I can be of any help just let me know.

All the best,
IV/JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 07:38 PM
Ditto what Swine said, same goes for me Cirx. A hearty Salute to you for all that you've done. Let's stay in touch on this via email. Thanks to all those involved in this, both on the pro and con side of things, that stayed on topic and did so with respect to one another and the developers of this sim. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

Direct quotes taken from the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford report on their full evaluation of a captured 190 in 1942 -

"The view for search from the Fw 190 is the best that has yet been seen by this Unit. The cockpit hood is of moulded Plexiglass and offers an unrestricted view all round."

"The good all-round view from the aircraft, <font size="4">particularly over the nose</font>, makes the Fw 190 very suitable for low flying and ground strafing."

"The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, is about half a ring better than that from the Spitfire. The all-round search view is the best that has been seen from any aircraft flown by this Unit."


Message Edited on 10/07/0311:40AM by IVJG51_Dart

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 08:18 PM
IVJG51_Dart wrote:
-
-
- Direct quotes taken from the Air Fighting
- Development Unit at Duxford report on their full
- evaluation of a captured 190 in 1942 -
-
- "The view for search from the Fw 190 is the best
- that has yet been seen by this Unit. The cockpit
- hood is of moulded Plexiglass and offers an
- unrestricted view all round."
-
- "The good all-round view from the aircraft, <font
- size="4">particularly over the nose</font>,
- makes the Fw 190 very suitable for low flying and
- ground strafing."
-
- "The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the
- normal position, is about half a ring better than
- that from the Spitfire. The all-round search view is
- the best that has been seen from any aircraft flown
- by this Unit."
-
-
-
- Cheers,
- Lawn Dart
- Operations Officer, IV/JG51
- http://www.jg51.net/
-

Well, I can imagine the view from the spitfire was worse, in 1942, they still didn't have the bubble-top canopies.

- "The view for search from the Fw 190 is the best
- that has yet been seen by this Unit. The cockpit
- hood is of moulded Plexiglass and offers an
- unrestricted view all round."

Anyways, the view for searching, refers to the allround view I think. Like you don't search for aircraft, only trough your front window.

The view 'over the nose' is good, because the FW has a really short nose to start with! Ever wondered how those long noses of the 109, P-51 and spitfire looked like from the cockpit? It really should be a huge 'stay-in-the-way'. Espescially with the P-40, it has a small air intake on top of the cowling. With the BMW radial eninge from the FW-190, the nose is very short so, it is easy to look over it. FB mostly doesn't show the noses of most aircraft. The Il-2 is the only one that I can think of right now. (But, it hasn't even such a big nose as some other aircraft, strange)

If you find yourself in a diffrent car, with a slightly longer or higher front-part, I immediatly notice it and I always must get used to the decreased field of view. Now imagine a spitfire jock, being used to the obstruction of his long-nose merlin aircraft, in the cockpit of the FW-190. WOW That's nice!! He doesn't even see the nose!! WOW, what a great view!!

Really, I believe the evidence that you speak off is good but, we just have diffrent interpertations of it. You seem good informed, what did the Germans say about the FW-190 view themselves? Have you any test/combat reports?


1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 08:48 PM
Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:
-
- Really, I believe the evidence that you speak off is
- good but, we just have diffrent interpertations of
- it. You seem good informed, what did the Germans say
- about the FW-190 view themselves? Have you any
- test/combat reports?
-
-
-
- 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
- 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
- shall be judged: and with what
-
- measure ye mete, it shall be
-
- measured to you again.
-
-
- <a
- href="http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index
- .php"><img
- src="http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templa
- tes/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif" border "0"></a>

I'm working on this. We have a real, true to life ace (26 airial victories) of JG51 still alive and living in the states. Our CO has met him and has had communications with him over the years. His health is failing though so it may prove difficult to get any information from him. He flew both 109s and 190s on the Eastern Front. As I find out more you can be sure I'll post.



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

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 09:17 PM
That is just one of the problems with the Internet... it is easy to be misunderstood.

Let me clarify a clarification.

"Now, what does that prove?"
(In regards to my bastardization of Cirx's pic.)
"Nothing!"
Are you reading this clearly, Platypus_1.JaVA? The pic was merely 'thrown up' to show that anyone can post a pic, and I could try and prove something with it, (but of course I will not), but I cannot expect everyone to see eye to eye with me if I did try. So, to some pro-190 people, don't come in these threads and bash Oleg because things have not changed (yet). Even if 'you' feel wronged, well, you know the saying.

Immediate following quotes by: starfighter1...
"You can leave"

Anyone here can leave. That is a given. I could just as well say you can leave if you cannot accept the FW-190 view as it now is. But, I would not be so bold as to do that.

"it's a open forum to many views"

Thus, my opinion. From my view, severe anti-Oleg comments are uncalled for. Surely, by now, it should be obvious that these threads generate such comments. Consequently, 'I' say, let it rest. Continue going through the research, and going through the proper channels, but I would be hard pressed to believe that a person starting these threads would not know what will happen in them.

"Do You thing that we get a progress in combatsims while we ignore always old design mistakes"

No. However, some people post about the 190 view like it is a crime against humanity, perpetrated by Oleg.

"would it be better to change old 'views' in our mind."

No. (I am not trying to change anyone's view of the, err, 190 view.)

Maybe "it's time to become more professional" and allow me to have my opinion, which seems to be misconstrued by some. But, again, the Internet 'does that' sometimes. So, it is OK.

QUOTE: IVJG51_Dart...
"you are on a crusade to make a point that these threads always degenerate into anti-Oleg posts" (Directed towards me, the lovable RealKill. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif )

I am not laughing at you in a mean way, but that is laughable. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif And, "Oleg sucks" is pretty degenerative, IMO. (Refer to "my opinion" above, please.) Also, if you see what I post here as a crusade, how do you think many people with reasonable intelligence and common sense see these continued 190 threads/posts, which, inevitably, contain the 'standard nonsense'? (I would guess, by now, anyone can assertain what i mean by 'standard nonsense'.) - About 'my' pic, refer to my clarification of my clarification. (Heh.)

QUOTE: Cirx...
"Hi Realkill ... Sincerely Cirx" (And basically everything in between.)

I am way ahead of you. I did not come in here to debate your main points, which you took the time to relay to me, in regards to the FW-190 view. Again, without a discussion concerning right, wrong or in between, I think it should be modified.

In closing...
Cirx, I thank you for your candor. You did not get offensive at the bastardization of your sig, as there was no malice intended on my part, that is appreciated. My assumption of you was correct.)

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#4A535C">

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 09:27 PM
Real Kill and platypus, u can let this thread rest in peace, we sure dont neeed ppl like u in here. and of course u dont want ppl like u in threads what are important to u do u?

Just let ppl dig some information about this subject in peace, its not away from u. u just can quit looking this thread.

spend ur time playing the game, its more educating than that trolling with funny attitude. just hush away will u.

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 10:04 PM
Enofinu wrote:
- Real Kill and platypus, u can let this thread rest
- in peace, we sure dont neeed ppl like u in here. and
- of course u dont want ppl like u in threads what are
- important to u do u?
-
- Just let ppl dig some information about this subject
- in peace, its not away from u. u just can quit
- looking this thread.
-
- spend ur time playing the game, its more educating
- than that trolling with funny attitude. just hush
- away will u.


Enofinu,


If you wanted this thread to die why did you post in it? Because, you just had to get your put-down in. Just like so many Oleg bashers feel they need to do.

Also, you have no problem calling someone a troll when you do not like their opinion.

It is obvious from your posts you are pro LW. You have posted many comments/opinions to display that. That is your prerogative.

Guess what? I can post comments/opinions, also. I can have my own prerogative.

Do you really think threads like this, containing derogatory remarks towards Oleg, help "what are important to u"?

"important"... hmmm. The more threads like this that contain put-down remarks, the more people 'force' Oleg' to say he will not change the 190 view, well, guess what about something else, the harder it will be to get what 'you' want.

Also, I am not one bit surprised, by "ppl like u ", that directed such statements towards me and Platypus, and totally ignored the Oleg bashers.

BTW, you, yourself, have said in the past...
"Fight fire with fire!!! "

If you want to see my posts as "fire", it is still obvious that my fire is not as hot as... "Oleg sucks". Or, how about this one from you... "they is lying".

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#4A535C">

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 10:08 PM
hi,
..hm..sorry.. RealKill..polemics is not the way of discussion..
if You have new facts and figures/pics ..maybe blueprints ..come over ..You are welcome ..show us ..if not from FW..than of other planes ... to another thread about forward views in combatsims..in general ..
constructive discussion is the only way...

..remember some old threads to this point...

thx for attention..

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 10:14 PM
Please, gentlemen. We have worked hard to keep this thread informative and not spiral into what you two or three are doing right now, and that is making it become a flame fest. RealKill, you had expressed a concern over "Oleg bashing" threads, and this being one of them when it really hasn't been. Yes, I grant you that some (PigPig as an example) can't seem to contain themselves. But, the majority of this thread has been informative and constructive. Why now, do you guys feel it necessary to drag this into a dumb flame fest? If you guys are truly against that type of cummunication on these forums then I would think that you would be able to put yourselves in check and NOT add to the fire. Let's continue to keep the thread informative, please.If you have some new evidence that deals with this threads topic we'd love to see it and share in it.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 10:53 PM
Sorry, just couldnt go to bed without this.

RealKill wrote:
That is just one of the problems with the Internet... it is easy to be misunderstood...as there was no malice intended on my part...

Yes, realkill, we are on the same page. But I think that your posts are misunderstood by most people here, and hence the malice. It is unfortunate that you are getting lumped together with other clearly idiotic posters.

I can only ask others here to read RealKill's post carefully, they are not the same as those of other less enchanting posters, although at a quick glance they might seem that way.

Goodnight!

http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 05:35 AM
A quick "I agree with the Moulders" post (and I am one too).

rogo

<center><img src =http://www.uploadit.org/files/051003-Screen1.1a.jpg>



"Those who long for exaltation look upwards. But I look downwards for I am the exalted." This was a quote from Nietzsche as he flew in his FW190 @ 20,000ft looking downwards.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 07:44 AM
So, back to some real information: test pilot Eric Brown (who has probably flown a greater variety of aircraft than any other man) had this to say in evaluation of the Fw-190s he flew:

"It sat high on the ground, the oleo legs of its undercarriage appearing extraordinarily long, and it was immediately obvious that, despite the superlative job of cowling done by the Focke-Wulf desginers, the big BMW 801D air-cooled radial engine was pretty obstrusive. Nevertheless, I was pleasantly surprised to find, after clambering into the somewhat narrow cockpit, that the forward view was still rather better than was offered by the Bf 109, the Spitfire, or the Mustang. The semi-reclining seat--ideal for high-g maneuvers--proved relatively comfortable and the controls fell easily to the hand, although the flight instruments were not, in my opinion, quite so well arranged as those of the contemporary Bf 109G...The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, was somewhat better than that of the Spitfire owing to the nose-down attitude of the Fw-190 in flight...and a particularly good feature of the cockpit was the outstanding search view that it offered, the good all-round visibility rendering a rear-view mirror unnecessary."

--from "Wings of the Luftwaffe" by Capt. Eric Brown

How anyone can reconcile the view in the game (arguably the second-worst after the razorback P-47) with statements like this is beyond me.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg


Message Edited on 10/08/0309:32PM by A.K.Davis

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 03:43 PM
Good stuff A.K. Thanks.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 03:56 PM
IVJG51_Dart wrote:
-
-
- I'm working on this. We have a real, true to life
- ace (26 airial victories) of JG51 still alive and
- living in the states. Our CO has met him and has had
- communications with him over the years. His health
- is failing though so it may prove difficult to get
- any information from him. He flew both 109s and 190s
- on the Eastern Front. As I find out more you can be
- sure I'll post.
-
-
-
-

That would be very nice to read!


1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 06:50 PM
bump

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 05:31 AM
I second that one Dart, Bump AK Davis, I have read that one also.....Great read and good quote I must say.....

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 08:41 AM
hi,
something to technicals
..hehe ..I waked up with a good idea,,

is it possible that You and Your team construct a mechanical rack (including a video/or dig camera)..
...of course in the hight of horizontal pilots view to the plane and to correct revi hight and pilots seat ..
..in the event You can use a motor remote controll video system(small electric motor).. You can use this system to many sight views in a very strict calm and precise movement..

1)
This kind of system could be used later in several planes..(non flyable oldtimers and warbirds...)to get more precise cockpit pics + videos of pilots forward view and to several sights left ...right ..half back..
..good base for a documentation: 'Pilots Cockpit and Gunsight Views in WWII Warbirds'


2)
another system can be used by pilots in flying warbirds ..think about helmet construction with stereo videocams closed to the helmet left/ride side and to the hight of pilots view...

remember many attemts in our flying club to get some videos from oldtimers...to sell over aeroauction ...

It's worth a try...


Cirx wrote:
- Sorry, just couldnt go to bed without this.
-
-

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 12:06 AM
If anyone seen they restored 4 190s from finland 190f8s and one is white 1 flown by Hienz Orlowski, hes the only german pilot who was reunited with the plane he flew in the war.

Discovery wings has about a 40 min documentary of him and him meeting up with his plane, he checked every piece of the plane pushing in all panel edges checking the guns latches nose and they had alot of cockpit views and that bar is under the site and flush with the top of the instrument panel and not visable from the cockpit even when looking from above.

I suggest someone gets a video capture of the video the proof is more then evident but I dont care if oleg and 1c dont even look at it. Its some great footage and to see hienz's face in the cockpit smiling seeing him go back in time is something everyone must see.

http://www.freewebs.com/leadspitter/lead.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 04:40 AM
Hello Leadspitter, the 190s in Rio hondo and San Antonio are the aircraft you are speaking about. These aircraft belong to the Texas Air Museum. I was advised that the aircraft that Hienz Orlowski came back to the states to see was transferred from Texas to Florida and is now being refurbished to FLYING status. I plan to go back to the museum very soon to get updated information(I was very impressed by the people at the museum in San Antonio, TX btw).

They show the video of him reunited with his Butcher Bird - priceless bud! Thats a true Forgotten Warrior there.........



Message Edited on 10/10/0303:56AM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 06:44 AM
all this is really simple.

in real life the refraction would give the pilot better viewing.

there is no refraction in the sim so the view is worse.

very simple solution - fix the 3d cockpit models to model VISIBILITY, not dimensions.



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

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 06:58 AM
Agreed


TPN_Bard wrote:
- all this is really simple.
-
- in real life the refraction would give the pilot
- better viewing.
-
- there is no refraction in the sim so the view is
- worse.
-
- very simple solution - fix the 3d cockpit models to
- model VISIBILITY, not dimensions.
-
-
-
-
- <A HREF="http://taipans.dyndns.org" TARGET=_blank><img
- src="http://www3.telus.net/ice51/taipans/tpn_bard.
- jpg"></A>

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 09:27 AM
hi,

..in general I discussed the points 1 Year ago(IL2/FW-190/Me-262) in a 3DMax Forum with a designer, who has experiences in cockpit modelling...

his comments:..'to general cockpit design..low poley modelling..all spaces which schould not seen in the game camera view ..the designer has to delete in the base 3DMax design ..(here: the overframed bar/as the part of the windscreen construction)
the problem of FW view..the revi in all german planes are much more near to the windscreen position than in other warbirds ..
...you must adjust the game view parallel to the gunsight view..

next..a higher construction of the revi view in the base design.../camera view(as Me 262 ed.) is possible ..so you get nearly 2 degree more view...


a general solution to this:a free moving game camera view in game .. non refraction design ..

WITHOUT CODE CHANGE ..no chances to all planes..

hope in the next sim ?

BUT: some fixes are possible in the running game...if someone change the base poly modelling of the windscreen in forward view..as shown above..

notice to canera view problems:have a look at P-51 thread..pilots cockpit view and frame modelling of the windscreen without refraction..


re: if someone has webspace I can post him some analyzes via e-mail



IV_JG51_Swine wrote:
- Agreed
-
-
- TPN_Bard wrote:
-- all this is really simple.
--
-- in real life the refraction would give the pilot
-- better viewing.
--
-- there is no refraction in the sim so the view is
-- worse.
--
-- very simple solution - fix the 3d cockpit models to
-- model VISIBILITY, not dimensions.


http://mezek.valka.cz/texty/filmy/data/bf109f-7-headon.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 12:04 PM
hi,
to Cirx and all..

nice polygon design view from Japan..

links: http://www2.cc22.ne.jp/~harada/index_e.html



http://www2.cc22.ne.jp/~harada/fw_190/fw_190_1.jpg





http://mezek.valka.cz/texty/filmy/data/bf109f-7-headon.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 05:43 PM
bump

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

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 07:16 AM
BUMP !

----------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
No forward view was obscured during the creation of this post...
----------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 05:31 PM
A.K.Davis wrote:
- So, back to some real information: test pilot Eric
- Brown (who has probably flown a greater variety of
- aircraft than any other man) had this to say in
- evaluation of the Fw-190s he flew:
-
- "It sat high on the ground, the oleo legs of its
- undercarriage appearing extraordinarily long, and it
- was immediately obvious that, despite the
- superlative job of cowling done by the Focke-Wulf
- desginers, the big BMW 801D air-cooled radial engine
- was pretty obstrusive. Nevertheless, I was
- pleasantly surprised to find, after clambering into
- the somewhat narrow cockpit, that the forward view
- was still rather better than was offered by the Bf
- 109, the Spitfire, or the Mustang. The
- semi-reclining seat--ideal for high-g
- maneuvers--proved relatively comfortable and the
- controls fell easily to the hand, although the
- flight instruments were not, in my opinion, quite so
- well arranged as those of the contemporary Bf
- 109G...The sighting view, when sitting comfortably
- in the normal position, was somewhat better than
- that of the Spitfire owing to the nose-down attitude
- of the Fw-190 in flight...and a particularly good
- feature of the cockpit was the outstanding search
- view that it offered, the good all-round visibility
- rendering a rear-view mirror unnecessary."
-
---from "Wings of the Luftwaffe" by Capt. Eric Brown
-
- How anyone can reconcile the view in the game
- (arguably the second-worst after the razorback P-47)
- with statements like this is beyond me.
-
---AKD
-

Nice post, gives something to think. The BMW radial was getting in the view way but, it was not as worse as on the spitfire. the all-round view is good, like in the game.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 11:08 PM
I made the 200th post - hehe.....Thanks all for your input into this study. I actually learned alot and that is a positive thing. I am going to conduct some further research this December-January time frame. I am unsure if I will post it here. I think we are going to just deal directly with Oleg and Company in regards to this issue from this point on(thats what I have been advised to do).
There are way too many people on this forum that take serious offense to this topic. However, I believe that the point has been made. I appreciate the support.

SALUTE IL-2/FB! Awesome sim! I look forward to the additional sims that will be coming out over time.

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 12:32 AM
Eric Brown wsa describing the view around the engine cowling while on the ground, in a taxi attitude, not in the air. Two entirely different things.

Barfly
Staffelkapitan
7./JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 01:34 AM
Hello Leadspitter, the 190s in Rio hondo and San Antonio are the aircraft you are speaking about. These aircraft belong to the Texas Air Museum. I was advised that the aircraft that Hienz Orlowski came back to the states to see was transferred from Texas to Florida and is now being refurbished to FLYING status. I plan to go back to the museum very soon to get updated information(I was very impressed by the people at the museum in San Antonio, TX btw).


Could you tell me where in Florida it's being restored? I'd love to take a look at it. Seeing how I live in Florida. It would be a great time to take a look at it.

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 02:24 AM
White 1 does not belong to the museum in Texas, it now has it's very own museum. It was owned by Dr Mark Timken (great guy) who formed the new museum and restoration project to flying status.

Check it out for yourself and donate a few dollars, by buying a cap or Tshirt, to this worthy cause. Opportunities to directly aid such projects do not come by every day, and in my opinion, anyone who does not and still claims to be an enthusiast is a twit.

http://www.white1foundation.org/

S!
Cirx le Misfit

http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:48 AM
starfighter1

very nice technical perspecitve- I appreciate it.

Your SIG is way too big and killing the dial-up men.

rogo

<center><img src =http://www.uploadit.org/files/051003-Screen1.1a.jpg>



"Those who long for exaltation look upwards. But I look downwards for I am the exalted." This was a quote from Nietzsche as he flew in his FW190 @ 20,000ft looking downwards.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 11:12 AM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif lol hahahaha Good GOD! don't you luftwhiners ever give up?

"Fw-190 forward view is correct, and will not be changed, Be sure."-Oleg



<CENTER>
http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1022.jpg

<FONT COLOR="White">Ghost Skies Matches Starting soon!
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="blue">
FOR INFORMATION ON THE 310TH FS OR 380TH BG Please visit the 310th FS Online @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange" http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="RED">
A proud member Squadron of Ghost Skies Forgotten Battles Tournament League.
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> 310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
<FONT COLOR="purple">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 01:23 PM
Copperhead310th wrote:

- lol hahahaha Good
- GOD! don't you luftwhiners ever give up?
-
- "Fw-190 forward view is correct, and will not be
- changed, Be sure."-Oleg


hi,
..to all simmers and 'Jonny Joysticks'..

the point... that a developer has no interest to change the view design/(camera view )..does not implied automatically,
that the forward view design(+ gunsight view) of the FW190 and some other planes in the running gamesim is correct and near to real things...

my two cents to such a kiddy comment...




http://mezek.valka.cz/texty/filmy/data/bf109f-7-headon.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 05:55 PM
hi,
to Cirx and all...
..problem of FW windscreen design in forward view..

..I got a first answer of a well known 3D designer in Japan....
..in general:..'to express thickness of bullet proof glass change reflect ratio of the 3-DCG software'...

I expect more details how to fix the problem of forward view soon.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



...just follow my wingman...
http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv

The_Blue_Devil
10-17-2003, 10:02 PM
Oh God not again.. LET IT GO!!! It has as much chance of getting fixed as the Jugs Roll Rate.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


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

<center> http://www.361stvfg.com </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:10 AM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:
Oh God not again.. LET IT GO!!! It has as much
- chance of getting fixed as the Jugs Roll Rate.


hi,
dear simmer friend....'You are sitting at the wrong desk'
(maybe that's the point of personal problem of some guys arround here...Could it be that Your teacher is telling You that many times when You entering the room at school every morning ..?)


we are talking about cockpit views, design of forward views ....not about 'roll rate'...

that could be discuss in another thread...

thx for attention..







...just follow my wingman...
http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 12:45 PM
Cirx, is there change you might get photo of clear aiming view through Revi 16. I mean from exact same height as FB gunsight view.

That should finally prove the point 100%.

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 12:33 AM
Rudi Linz FW-190A-7 80+ victories, Texas Air Museum, SATX
RafiGer's original with Rudi's mkgs.
http://gvtc.com/~thh/Rudi.jpg


<A HREF="http://gvtc.com/~thh/fb.html" target="_top"><img src="http://gvtc.com/~thh/Box-weasel.jpg"


Message Edited on 10/18/03 06:36PM by Box-weasel

Message Edited on 10/18/0306:38PM by Box-weasel

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 03:28 PM
hi,

..just some pics from the older restoration project TA-152..
(hope to get a revi 16b view soon in a well restored cockpit of FW...)

http://www.geocities.com/ta152uk/Restoration_1.html

(remember Olegs's ugly pic of forward view in the past)

..download the pics and zoom in ....notice the problems of thick glass and refraction...
(by the way: same problems of the Ki-84-1a design ..at the last dev.update...


just a note to the designer: change the reflect ratio of the 3D software + design the construction mounting of windstreen....without perspective(clean it..in low poly)..
http://www.il2sturmovik.de/ss_fb_dev/02-12/grab0010.jpg



http://www.geocities.com/ta152uk/Ta152_H-0_Cockpit_3.jpg



http://www.geocities.com/ta152uk/Ta152_H-0_Cockpit_5.jpg



...just follow my wingman...
http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv
http://www.roedelmodell.de/original/Me109/me109-4s.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 09:15 PM
Interesting....I remember hearing someone say that the TA-152 H1 that will be modeled in the game will have a different cockpit view than the FW 190s. Anybody have any input on that?

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 08:40 PM
IV_JG51_Swine wrote:
- Interesting....I remember hearing someone say that
- the TA-152 H1 that will be modeled in the game will
- have a different cockpit view than the FW 190s.
- Anybody have any input on that?
-

hi,
re to the above pics,

I got a answer from a well known 3D Designer ....

to my question ..that the cockpit forward view/pilots view ist strange and annatural in Ki-84/+FW 190...he told me:

....'.I think,there are several reason.If designer applying natural pilot-eyes view,you can see
only gunsihgt and canopy frame. (see cockpit2.jpg)

Designer who is create Ki-84,has been thought sky (important for flight sim) and instrument/
information into same picuture frame.(more information into one frame/screen)
Thus he took unnatural camera/view deliberately.

Matter of camera/lense settings of 3-Dprogramm....'


the test pics I got are from the Me 109..sorry can't post at the moment ..no webspace ..but I can send them to 'Grix' via mail...that's are a design from inside ..forward view..just to show the frame problems in design but not at all in height of pilot view...





...just follow my wingman...
http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv
http://www.roedelmodell.de/original/Me109/me109-4s.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 03:21 PM
BUMP

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 05:20 AM
Panelboy wrote:
- Eric Brown wsa describing the view around the engine
- cowling while on the ground, in a taxi attitude, not
- in the air. Two entirely different things.
-


Don't forget that the FW190 had an "unusual" flight attitude in that in the air it flew somewhat nose down which improved forward visibility.


<img src=http://home.insightbb.com/%7Edspinnett/NonSpeed/SpeedToys.jpg </img>
http://hometown.aol.com/spinnetti/

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 01:37 PM
cant see horixon when flying at low at high speed, in level flight, in FW. whan an unusual flying atitude it surely has. cant see where im flying, in ground taxiin i can understand that its rather hard to see front from plane, but this is awesome. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 02:07 PM
You guys put in a lot of effort, a pity but nothing will change guys.
Its just common sense.
Oleg has had plenty of time to change the 190 forward view by now if he had any intentions of doing so.

The last post I saw from a moderator on the matter was that nothing will change live with it and move on.

Last post I saw from Oleg on the matter was, 190 forward view will not be revisited.

Doh! I guess your in Denial

S!

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 11:02 AM
hi,

and remember...a good job to the new 3D designer 'Sergey Golovachev' at Maddox team to show that he is able to fix old design bugs:
re: http://www.triplane.net/190/190view.htm

http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/killerevidence/fw190_cockpit_sheet_1.jpg


outer surface
of the glass. >/..../< inner surface of the glass
....+++++++/..../
................../.+./
................/..../+++++++ gunsight line
.............../..../
............./..../
...------/---/-------- frame position as in FB
........../. \ /
........./..../------ frame position as should be
......./..../


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


http://www.zmogausteises.lt/fb/compare.jpg




...just follow my wingman...
http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv
http://www.roedelmodell.de/original/Me109/me109-4s.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 07:59 PM
Yeah, I know...beating a dead horse here, but there is just too much good info in this thread to let it slide out of existence. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 08:10 PM
IVJG51_Dart wrote:
- Yeah, I know...beating a dead horse here, but there
- is just too much good info in this thread to let it
- slide out of existence.

I fully agree! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif This is one great thread!!

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



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

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 08:10 PM
Hi ...The bar you speak of is not a bar but the bottom of the layered .armor glass..I drove armored for some time with the same look on the bottom.
I think it was done that way to show how thick the glass was ...maybe im wrong..

thx thats my 2 cents worth....

I do see what you see.




Chin up ..HUTCH
http://www.il2skins.com/skins/thumbs/5518.jpg


Next time your in Eugene,Oregon come see me at my internet/lan center....I have 2 systems runing FB
http://64.122.43.227/

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 06:12 AM
I'm sorry but what the hell. Great forward view here I would say.

http://images.snapfish.com/338%3C536723232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3A%3D6%3B%3A%3D4 37%3DXROQDF%3E2323472%3C555%3C7ot1lsi

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 07:27 AM
Without changing model they could improve visibility in the FB 190s by changing "non Gunsight" head position to be higher like in Me262 and allowing the 190 to fly more nose down when at cruise speed.Those two thing would help visibility immensely and perhaps be even more historically correct without even worrying about 3D model.

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 11:32 AM
Someone please explain to me (don't have time to read these 200+ posts) how Oleg has managed to keep this bar in the FW 190, when MULTIPLE sources have indicated that there is no such bar?

I thank you Oleg and 1C for everything that you've done, and the great.... BEST sim there is availible... but how can you conciously let this slip? If 1.2 is to be the last free patch, i certainly hope this is adressed, or at least we have a final word from Oleg about the situation... as it is CLEARLY not resolved.

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 03:39 PM
ucanfly wrote:
- Without changing model they could improve visibility
- in the FB 190s by changing "non Gunsight" head
- position to be higher like in Me262 and allowing
- the 190 to fly more nose down when at cruise
- speed.Those two thing would help visibility
- immensely and perhaps be even more historically
- correct without even worrying about 3D model.
-
-

I couldn't agree with you more ucanfly. At least that could be done. If anybody wants to try this out go out and get in an ME 262 and hit the shift F1 button. You will get one heck of a forward and all around view. I wish we were able to have that in the FW as well. I actually posted a similiar post a while back but nobody listened. For the most part when you bring up any information on the LW aircraft you get the instant whiner remarks. That doesn't bother me anymore though. What does bother me is that Oleg hasn't even commented on this thread. Now I realize that he has had it with the FW view but when new information arrived I would have hoped he would have have at least addressed it.

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 04:31 PM
oleg ... you is wrong !!!!!

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 05:05 PM
Wow. Not much time on your hands eh??? kidding

Great info on the FW, they have one in Texas and Ohio you say. I would give my left one to actually fly any of these birds in FB, even the Bombers.

I'm going to have to check out Ohio I hear it takes days to go through the place.

Great Info once again

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 06:26 PM
I took the liberty of doing some photoshop repair work to the photo above, and added the rev16b gunsight from the photo on first page....

http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=25715

yes the bar is thinner in real life but as to how much it obstruct the gunsight, we cant say oleg is wrong....

My point is NOT to prove which side of argument is right, as my photo is not a real one. My point is we need obsoblute concrete evidence if we try to prove something. And things might not be as they "obviously seems"

I/JG54_SerpentBlade
http://www.jg54.net/

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 06:45 PM
another picture posted in this forum long ago

http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=25716

I/JG54_SerpentBlade
http://www.jg54.net/

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 06:52 PM
reflection in glass ... the bar is not thinner ... its not there at all


oleg you is wrong



yes i like beating dead horses http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 07:16 PM
Reflection should be transparent. Indeed reflection exists in the second photo, we we take a closer look.

http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=25717

But for the comparison photo, u surely cant see reflection in the cockpit becuase its much darker than outside.

I/JG54_SerpentBlade
http://www.jg54.net/

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 10:00 PM
SerpentBlade wrote:
- I took the liberty of doing some photoshop repair
- work to the photo above, and added the rev16b
- gunsight from the photo on first page....
-
- <img
- src="http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?s=&
- postid=25715">
-
- yes the bar is thinner in real life but as to how
- much it obstruct the gunsight, we cant say oleg is
- wrong....
-
- My point is NOT to prove which side of argument is
- right, as my photo is not a real one. My point is we
- need obsoblute concrete evidence if we try to prove
- something. And things might not be as they
- "obviously seems"
-
- I/JG54_SerpentBlade
- http://www.jg54.net/


EXACTLY, SerpentBlade,

I don't fly the 190 much so I CERTAINLY do not have any bias here.

But, I do find it very telling that some of the MANY, OBSCURE AND DUBIOUS photos that supposedly ABSOLUTELY prove Oleg wrong, will show just the opposite when a little bit of clarity is added.

I would say about half of the photos that have been presented in both threads prove Oleg right and the other half prove Oleg wrong. One cannot pick and choose which data they want to use in this case and one cannot convict and sentence Oleg using half of the evidence.

If it were my sim, I would never change the view after all of this. You people need to come down HARD!!! on mentally challenged posts like pigpig's ... but you don't. Only one or two of you make a subtle comment.

Look objectively ... Many of you are seeing only what you WANT to see. NOTHING!!! has been proven yet.

Also, there is a web site that has been posted on this forum where the f4u corsair was compared to the 190. The 190 pilot specifically mentions the bad forward visibility. Again, half of the evidence.

Yeah, I am sure I will be shown the exit by many of you simply because I do not agree with your ... ideas. But, really I could not care less, and those of you that will suggest that I can just leave the thread are only exposing your agenda.

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 11:26 PM
Hope i dont bore you all, here's something further to show how our eyes can be deceived...

On the left is the "photoshop refurbished" 190 cockpit w/ gunsight, on the right is a modified 190 cockpit, plz note the "bar" is thinner now. They look quite similar right? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=25720

compare to original 190 cockpit you can clearly see the bar is indeed thinner now, and the gunsight also got a more realistic lens. Looking good isnt it?

http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=25721

But wait a minute, is the FOV improved? Its actually exactly as the FOV before. Not increased by a single pixel! Measure it by a ruler and see what I mean /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Again I havent proven anything, just to show how "impression" can affect "judgement" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

PS here's what I think why the "bar" looks so tall in the 190 cockpit: That brown curly sponge cushion is TOO LOW compare to real 190 cockpit. plz note the in game 190 gunsight was actually "stretched" (compare to real rev16b photo) to place the crosshair at the correct position /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif




Message Edited on 11/21/0306:54AM by SerpentBlade

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 12:31 AM
More photoshoping..../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=25722

I/JG54_SerpentBlade
http://www.jg54.net/

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 01:37 AM
A possible explanation revi 16b cannot be mounted higher...
10cm headroom here and the reticle dimmer prohibited it to be mounted higher.

IIRC Oleg mensioned before that the angle of armor glass and position of reticle dimmer make it impossible for the sight to be mounted any higher.

http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=25791

source: cirx's site http://www.triplane.net/190/fw190.htm

my apologies for quoting his pictures without his prior approval



Message Edited on 11/22/0309:24PM by SerpentBlade

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 04:49 AM
Dear Mr.Maddox and all others concerned.

I wish to state for the record that I have in no way participated in the "reseach" contained in the last few posts above this one. Nor did I give permission for my photographs to be used by the author or even receive a request for this. I can thus not, and do not wish to, be associated with any of the (amusing) conclusions he has reached.

Since there is no practical way for the 1C company to re-visit the 190 cockpit prior to the last addision the the FB series, there is little point in continuing this thread. I am indeed in contact with mr Maddox through a mutual friend and further reseach on my part has also indicated that while the IL2 interpretation of the gunsight position is perhaps not 100% authentic, it is far from wrong. The height of gunsights used in the FW 190 series was very much dependant upon the factory of origin, the model and pilot preference. I do not wish to elaborate further in this forum on this topic except to say that this is not a feature of the aircraft that can be numbered and filed, and thus Mr Maddox's conclusions, based on his own thurough research,are not wrong in so far as the subjects of his research are concerned.

However, one would be hard pressed to find 2 190 examples with exactly the same height of sight. There simply is no "right" or "wrong" here. The lowest position of the sight was flush with the dashboard (more or less, the current height in FB, considerred factory standard), the highest would be, in the case of the Revi 16A,B or D , the height at which the dimmer lens would still deploy fully.The distance from the bulkhead was also very much a variable, with most pilots chosing a position as close to their faces as possible, and this also alowing more height.

The accuracy of reflectors in German planes was not diminished by small changes and height and position. Indeed the standard was to position the gunsight to the right of the cockpit, not the centre. Reflector gunsights in warplanes all suffer from the distance vertically between the sightline and the launchpoints. The crossover points are further complications due to differing calibers,loads, and the horisontal and vertical adjustment available to most forward firing armaments on LW aircraft.The best any reflector gunsight could offer at any practical distance for air combat was an approximation. That is why one needs to be very close to be accurate. At anything further than 100 meters one has to use the ammount of guns and their rate of fire as compensation for the reflector's lack of accuracy. The vertical adjustment of gunsights is therefore not so much a RLM specification issue as it is a preference issue. On the 109 the gunsight is indeed mounted as hight as the higher panel and mounting arm allows. On the FW 190 it is not much different. Oleg is not wrong. He is in fact correct. Those that would like to see the gunsight mounted higher are equally correct. Examples of both served the LW in the war and examples of both survive today.

Mr Maddox has asked me through our friend to see if I cannot help them in their research for the next sim (BoB) and I am very humbled by this. it is going to be the start of something great, and I know that most theatres of arial conflict will be visited after that. And so, by the time the 190 makes it's appearance in a 1C sim again, Oleg might have decided to change the gunsight view to a (historically accurate) position better suited to deflection shooting. And if he does not,he will not be wrong. He will still be 100% accurate. and I will support him either way.

It's a variable. Simple as that. The current gunsight height does not suit most of us here (in this thread) and if we were real pilots in WW2 we could have gotten our crew chiefs to lower or raise them,tilt or bring them forwards or backwards, and set the guns up accordingly. Others may wish to keep using the standard position. Or your squad may not have acess to different mounts and arms and drills!

But we are not. And our crew chief is Oleg Maddox. So be nice! ...or on your next sortie your guns may jam and your tailplane come loose!

Salute!
Cirx



http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 05:21 AM
Although some have elaborated on this I humbly ask that you to investigate further both the "head height" and "nose attitude in level flight" issues in the 190.

There is evidence cited in this thread that both of these are out of whack on the FB 190, thus decreasing visibility dramatically. I would guess that changing either one of these does not involve changing the 3D model AT ALL.

No offense to all of you who have performed such thorough research, but I could care less if I have a 1 inch bar at the bottom of the windscreen or no parallax on the gunsight if my head is down too low and the plane flies at the wrong nose attitude (too high).

I love this game because of its attempt to accurately model these warplanes. Please let us not miss our chance to have a 190 in the game that reflects the excellent visibility the real 190 was purported to have in flight.



Message Edited on 11/21/03 06:15AM by ucanfly

Message Edited on 11/21/0306:17AM by ucanfly

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 06:29 AM
Serpentblade, you should compare your photos to my photos that are the topic of this thread. You also used other's photos while applying some photoshop on them. That tells me that you have no real experience with one of these birds since you have nothing of YOUR OWN to show. That is pretty typical. Everyone is an expert. I tell you what, when you go out and conduct your own research instead of stealing from others then you may have some credibility.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 10:48 AM
hi,

dear FW 190-fans...
..we are talking about a PC-combatflightsim..with all problems of camera view and pilots view in relation to real pilots view..
and of course the actual view of the FW 190 view/gunsight view is far a way from the real things.
..but in this case some fixes in height of camera view, the main feature shift+F1 and the main 3DMax base design of the armored glass within the scope (including ..refraction) is a problem of redesign and recoding....same to height of revi 16b..

to my studies and relation to well informed rebuilders of warbirds the conclusion: the virtual forward view in this bird
is wrong...and this is not the point of blueprint interpretation by Maddox-team designers...
.. it's a 'wrong' interpretaion of camera view of real view in this plane...by the way in some planes we have only 'few' view 'mistakes' concerning as a compromise of the game camera view in the main design of the coded engine..that's the point..

a good compromise to future fix could be a little bit in that way of higher up view as in the Me 262 virtual view...it's not the best way at all ..but a easy way to get more real view to virtual combat gunsight view...

in this case I hope to get some new rebuild 16b pics from pilots view soon...hope also a cocpit video in flight action...
to Crix: a original armored windescreen could be available ...a cockpit rebuilder got two..one was used as a glass block in a old farmer barn building in Germany ..

..to all: if the Maddox team fix a little bit more to this nice warbird and coming Ta-152...the would show that they handle users critics and the service in a professional and serious way ....in the interest of more advanced progress to this greate sim...

...just follow my wingman...
http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv ( <A HREF=)" target=_blank>http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv</a>

...just follow my wingman...
http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 11:23 AM
hi,

sorry Cirx..Oleg Maddox posted HIS base design pic as a reference to the modelling view in the past...see the link in ORR....can't find at the moment with forums software ??..

beside of that ugly quality and 'wrong' interpretation ..hmm??

..sorry.. dear Fw and IL2/FB fans..that kind of pics should not be a professional artwork to the cockpit view design team...
...and of course they use blueprints ...but a designer in 3DMax should look also to real pilots lens view in a warbird cockpit and to correct lens taken photos of rebuild cockpits
..etc...
a pic is not the original pic ...in same sec taken after...

...just follow my wingman...
http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 01:32 PM
Thats oustanding Cirx, in a nutshell that means that there is a possiblity that with your assistance to Oleg that the FW 190 view might be altered in the future. I understand that it may not be a huge change but a little could be very siginficant. Man, thats great, thats what this whole deal was all about. I truly believed that the work that was being conducted by individuals now would not have and effect until the sim after BOB or whatever sim had brought the 190 back into play.

Thanks for that -S!



Cirx wrote:
- Dear Mr.Maddox and all others concerned.
-
- I wish to state for the record that I have in no way
- participated in the "reseach" contained in the last
- few posts above this one. Nor did I give permission
- for my photographs to be used by the author or even
- receive a request for this. I can thus not, and do
- not wish to, be associated with any of the (amusing)
- conclusions he has reached.
-
- Since there is no practical way for the 1C company
- to re-visit the 190 cockpit prior to the last
- addision the the FB series, there is little point in
- continuing this thread. I am indeed in contact with
- mr Maddox through a mutual friend and further
- reseach on my part has also indicated that while the
- IL2 interpretation of the gunsight position is
- perhaps not 100% authentic, it is far from wrong.
- The height of gunsights used in the FW 190 series
- was very much dependant upon the factory of origin,
- the model and pilot preference. I do not wish to
- elaborate further in this forum on this topic except
- to say that this is not a feature of the aircraft
- that can be numbered and filed, and thus Mr Maddox's
- conclusions, based on his own thurough research,are
- not wrong in so far as the subjects of his research
- are concerned.
-
- However, one would be hard pressed to find 2 190
- examples with exactly the same height of sight.
- There simply is no "right" or "wrong" here. The
- lowest position of the sight was flush with the
- dashboard (more or less, the current height in FB,
- considerred factory standard), the highest would be,
- in the case of the Revi 16A,B or D , the height at
- which the dimmer lens would still deploy fully.The
- distance from the bulkhead was also very much a
- variable, with most pilots chosing a position as
- close to their faces as possible, and this also
- alowing more height.
-
- The accuracy of reflectors in German planes was not
- diminished by small changes and height and position.
- Indeed the standard was to position the gunsight to
- the right of the cockpit, not the centre. Reflector
- gunsights in warplanes all suffer from the distance
- vertically between the sightline and the
- launchpoints. The crossover points are further
- complications due to differing calibers,loads, and
- the horisontal and vertical adjustment available to
- most forward firing armaments on LW aircraft.The
- best any reflector gunsight could offer at any
- practical distance for air combat was an
- approximation. That is why one needs to be very
- close to be accurate. At anything further than 100
- meters one has to use the ammount of guns and their
- rate of fire as compensation for the reflector's
- lack of accuracy. The vertical adjustment of
- gunsights is therefore not so much a RLM
- specification issue as it is a preference issue. On
- the 109 the gunsight is indeed mounted as hight as
- the higher panel and mounting arm allows. On the FW
- 190 it is not much different. Oleg is not wrong. He
- is in fact correct. Those that would like to see the
- gunsight mounted higher are equally correct.
- Examples of both served the LW in the war and
- examples of both survive today.
-
- Mr Maddox has asked me through our friend to see if
- I cannot help them in their research for the next
- sim (BoB) and I am very humbled by this. it is going
- to be the start of something great, and I know that
- most theatres of arial conflict will be visited
- after that. And so, by the time the 190 makes it's
- appearance in a 1C sim again, Oleg might have
- decided to change the gunsight view to a
- (historically accurate) position better suited to
- deflection shooting. And if he does not,he will not
- be wrong. He will still be 100% accurate. and I will
- support him either way.
-
- It's a variable. Simple as that. The current
- gunsight height does not suit most of us here (in
- this thread) and if we were real pilots in WW2 we
- could have gotten our crew chiefs to lower or raise
- them,tilt or bring them forwards or backwards, and
- set the guns up accordingly. Others may wish to keep
- using the standard position. Or your squad may not
- have acess to different mounts and arms and drills!
-
- But we are not. And our crew chief is Oleg Maddox.
- So be nice! ...or on your next sortie your guns may
- jam and your tailplane come loose!
-
- Salute!
- Cirx
-
-
-
-
- <img
- src="http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.
- JPG">





Message Edited on 11/21/0312:40PM by IVJG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 10:32 AM
IVJG51_Swine wrote:
- Serpentblade, you should compare your photos to my
- photos that are the topic of this thread. You also
- used other's photos while applying some photoshop on
- them. That tells me that you have no real
- experience with one of these birds since you have
- nothing of YOUR OWN to show. That is pretty typical.
- Everyone is an expert. I tell you what, when you
- go out and conduct your own research instead of
- stealing from others then you may have some
- credibility.
-
Please read what I said. I made it very clear on my first post I was not here to prove which side of argument is right or wrong. Nor was it my intention to make any conclusion. I never claimed myself an expert. I wasn't doing any research here for a credit neither. What I did was taking the evidence already presented here, elaborate it further, and bring up to the public for discussion.

I didnt use your photos simply because they are not usable as evidence. The black and white photo is an external view with no pilot's head in cockpit and the aircraft nose as reference points, so I cannot be sure if the camera is slightly higher that pilots line of sight. In fact if a 10mm tall bar does exist in front of a gunsight 200mm away, you only need to raise the camera 2.9 degree higher than the gunsight line to tatally "reveal" the whole gunsight reflection glass. (example, if the camera is positioned 1 meter in front of that cockpit, it only need to be raised 5cm above the gunsight line to take an unobstructed gunsight picture)

The other picture of yours was not taken parallel to the gunsight line so it wasnt usable neither.

Cirx's picture was used because its the only one available that was taken close to what a real pilot will see, and its the only one without "reflections" thats hard to interpret. The only problem is the panels was bent so it was difficult to see how it is and its missing a gunsight. So I did some copy and paste and rotation to put them at the correct angles, I didnt change the dimension of anything, including the height of the bar or the brown sponge). The imaginary gunsight I placed in also look proportional to other part of the cockpit. As a matter of fact for it to "clear" the bar, it should be either 25% larger than it looks now, or to be raised so it doesnt look like how its mounted in your picture.

Regarding that I didnt consult Cirx before using the pictures, I do apologize.

PS. I dont need you to tell me anything, if you have any real experience of these birds of YOUR OWN why dont you lecture Oleg about that. I am here to play the game, not to make it.



Message Edited on 11/22/0307:43PM by SerpentBlade

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 03:50 PM
hi,

and here ladies and gentleman ..the next 'wrong' bar or forward view design of this famous 'Spitfire'...

I guess a failure in 3DMax forward view programming of windscreen mounting /glasslens/refraction/perspective/...
+ a main problem(bug ?)of integratin in games camera view system by the old codet game engine + pilots heigt forward view programming in general....

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/spitpit01.jpg


...just follow my wingman...
http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:06 PM
Something OT, actually I am a die-hard 190 fan, (if any one still remembers an IL2 movie called REQUIEM, my teammate XPC and me made it for the love of fw-190), I was a formal believer of 190 view should be better than what in FB is. I was also the first few people who voted "imporve the 190 view" in an unofficial poll in this forum.

I actually photoshopped Cirx's great research pictures with intention to make it clear for non-believers that the 190's view is better than what FB is. Then instead, I got a different result, and I begin to think Oleg is actually right!

I try to be an objective person myself, and I believe in evidence. Further examinations by measuring pixels got me the result the gunsight in FB has height:width=1.12:1, while in the gunsight picture, roughly 1:1, what i did then was moving the sponge up 9 pixels to get the sight proportions as in the photo, and added a lens, then I got the result almost identical to what I photoshopped out of Cirx's picture!

Cross examined with another photo with different source I still seem to have identical result. Then with hope that its possible in real life to mount the da*n sight higher, I drew a chart to see how high I can mount the revi16b with 10cm headroom, (revi16b proportions obtained from photo, with assumption the height of glass being 60mm, a figure I heard from this forum), what I get seem to be that....its already mounted as high as it can be. At this point I remembered Oleg mensioned the same thing...

And now I believe Oleg was right until further evidence showing otherwise...


I/JG54_SerpentBlade
http://www.jg54.net/

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 05:44 PM
hi,
SerpentBlade..and others: Do You know the different between a design based on blueprints...and a virtual view design compare to real pilots view in a plane ?

I guess we have a big bug either in the 3DMax base design and in the integration into the camera view game engine system itself.

.. to test it.. the 3DCG software base design of the planes need a change in reflect ratio of bullet proof glass..

have a look at Gibbage Spitfire thread in general forum ...
..I guess he saw a lot of pics and blueprints but never sized out pilots eye view in reality..
..same to the mounting of windscreen and perspective by zooming in and out...and height of view..

..the base to more better virtual view in game...compare to real pilots view ...that's are professional taken pics and lens integration of pilots eye views into the base design... beside the 'blueprint'construction...the codet game engine camera view system to all planes is a compromise and not flexible enough even if you change to gunsight view by ..shift+F1...
..so I guess ..sometimes the designers have to work with the change of height of the camera view in game..or if possible.. throw off some overframed bars and construction parts in the thickness and size of dimension...

I tested this with a 3Danalyzing tool in OpenGl without frames..

..I guess the developers know the problems ..and work on better view system at BoB.

but anyway ..a small design patch to performe the height of pilots view in FW 190 is overdue ..


...just follow my wingman...
http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 08:38 PM
Starfighter1,

If you mean taking refractive index into consideration, IMO we cant say Oleg hadnt done or hadnt considered the effect neither.

Please take a look of the next picture, we assume the refractive index of glass here being 1.6


Without refraction, 45.3mm height of the gunsight will be blocked by the bar, (as in blue area) with refraction and the bar appeared only 14.5mm tall (as we trace the red light ray, blocked area filled in black).

http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=25814

Once again we obtained a familiar view how the gunsight is blocked /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

By examining this picture:

http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=25716

and measure the pixels, we get a roughly bar height of ~8mm, that means the other end of glass sinked ~7mm below the panel top. That gives us that without simulating refraction, about 38mm of gunsight will be blocked, it would look like this in FB:

http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=25816

and look like this in REAL LIFE!

http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=25815



Message Edited on 11/23/0303:39AM by SerpentBlade

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 09:52 PM
hi,

..I know..
It's depends also on how the designers work out low poly modelling of the windscreen mounting...and the correct perspective...of this..

..have a look at the 'Spitfire' or 'Ki-84' ..in original the windscreen bar of mounting is nearly half of the size in real than in imported 3D modelling into game...

next..have a look at the design of the thick armored windscreen of Me 262 by this fine french designers...

I guess the game engine is also importing overframed design.. if the designers in base 3DMax are not working 100% clean ...beside the problem of height in the games camera view/virtual pilots view ...
.. could it be that the codet game engine importe double size frames from base design to realize the cockpit view/camera view..?

remember in the past.. many designers of cockpits view in PC-warbird games construct a view like in the actual P-51..as without proof glass...

I've a forward cockpit view design from a well known jap. designer..as a study of Me 109..should post it to show the difference ..done with 'Lightwave6x'...
(any webspace available ?)


SerpentBlade wrote:
- Starfighter1,
-
- If you mean taking refractive index into
- consideration, IMO we cant say Oleg hadnt done or
- hadnt considered the effect neither.
-
- Please take a look of the next picture, we assume
- the refractive index of glass here being 1.6
-
-

...just follow my wingman...
http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv