PDA

View Full Version : About the Spitfire bar



XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 10:53 AM
Hi all,

Yes, this bar is not so big:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/warbirds_en_normandie/Cokpits/Images/coc4.jpg


heers,

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 10:53 AM
Hi all,

Yes, this bar is not so big:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/warbirds_en_normandie/Cokpits/Images/coc4.jpg


heers,

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 11:40 AM
What bar are you refering to?

I'd never join a club that would have ME as a member!!.

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 12:12 PM
ELEM wrote:
- What bar are you refering to?


The Spitfire bar.

These guys say it r0xx0rz.

http://georgegoodwin.com/gaypridetn.jpg

<center>http://www.btinternet.com/~lenazavaroni/images/tva_01a.jpg

<font size="+4">What a fox!</font></center>

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 12:21 PM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://astro.ic.ac.uk/~sci/SpitfireGallery/Cockpit_1.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 12:42 PM
There's a little drinks cabinet in there? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


I'll get my coat.

-----
In memory of 'The Few'
<img src=http://www.lima1.co.uk/Sharkey/spitfire.jpg>
The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk/
Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated.

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 01:06 PM
can you see that the refraction is not modelled again. look how negligible the bar on the photo is, and how thick it seems on the 3d model. please change it.




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

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 01:12 PM
tell it Fievel /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/196.html



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

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 01:12 PM
u is wrong. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

CHDT wrote:
- Hi all,
-
- Yes, this bar is not so big:
-
<img
- src="http://perso.wanadoo.fr/warbirds_en_normandie
- /Cokpits/Images/coc4.jpg">
-
-
- heers,
-
-

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 01:14 PM
Yep, like on the 190.

What's better:

- a geometrically correct 3D cockpit model giving a wrong pilot's view.

- a slightly modified 3D cockpit model (just a few millimeters can do the trick) giving a right pilot's view.

Personally, I prefer the second solution, because I like realism.

And when I say "a few millimeters", it's a few millimeters. I would hate to see solutions like transparent cockpit frames or ultrathin cockpit frames like in some other sims.

Cheers,



P.S. Yep, this Spit is a beautiful 3d model work. I hope a variant not with the bubble canopy is also in the work!

Message Edited on 10/01/0312:28PM by CHDT

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 01:16 PM
Some volunteer modellers seem to be convinced that they're meant to create dimensionally perfect blueprints without regard to refraction. That'd be fine if Oleg took care of the refraction FOR them, but he doesn't.

The standards for 3rd party models are set pretty high and I would hope that Oleg requires the views through armored windscreens to be correct.

BTW, the Sptifire model looks fantastic! Really superb. Hopefully Fievel is not as arrogant as some of the other people hoping to get their models accepted.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 01:57 PM
not only the bar, but look how thick the struts are. I still cant wait to see it flyable but viewed with out leaning it makes a huge difference in full real servers.

I understand on the 190 and probally the spitfire the large bars are to prevent clipping from the external plane model.

many of the modelers just go off recreation blueprints which dont have dimensions of the struts basically coping the print which isnt a perspective drawing


http://www.algarcia.org/art/perspective.jpg



http://www.freewebs.com/leadspitter/lead.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:07 PM
Col.Tomb wrote:
- Some volunteer modellers seem to be convinced that
- they're meant to create dimensionally perfect
- blueprints without regard to refraction. That'd be
- fine if Oleg took care of the refraction FOR them,
- but he doesn't.
-
- The standards for 3rd party models are set pretty
- high and I would hope that Oleg requires the views
- through armored windscreens to be correct.
-
- BTW, the Sptifire model looks fantastic! Really
- superb. Hopefully Fievel is not as arrogant as some
- of the other people hoping to get their models
- accepted.


Stop the bullsh!t, will you. You still don't have the clue how the thing works. First acquire the skills to even think about doing the job, and then do it yourself.

AND if you want to see an arrogant person, take a look in the mirror, it'll show you one.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:09 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:

- many of the modelers just go off recreation
- blueprints which dont have dimensions of the struts
- basically coping the print which isnt a perspective
- drawing

When model is rendered, perspective is produced. Perspective is therefore present in all game views.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:11 PM
CHDT wrote:
- Yep, like on the 190.
-
- What's better:
-
-- a geometrically correct 3D cockpit model giving a wrong pilot's view.
-
-- a slightly modified 3D cockpit model (just a few millimeters can do the trick) giving a right pilot's view.
-

It is not only the lower bar. Do you realise that refraction also makes the side bars thicker?

Do you want that too?


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:22 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- It is not only the lower bar. Do you realise that
- refraction also makes the side bars thicker?
-
- Do you want that too?

Absolutely. The desired goal is a realistic view, not a "better" one.

We're not a bunch of uneducated cheaters like you think. I do not need to post my CV and education background on this forum. If you don't agree with me why not say something logical for a change?

If you're such a great modeller Jippo, why haven't you talked with the developers about ways to simulate refraction in thick glass? Why are you a volunteer modeller? Shouldn't 1C:Maddox be paying you if you were any good? I hear Gibbage is getting money for his models.....

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

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:30 PM
Col.Tomb wrote:

- We're not a bunch of uneducated cheaters like you
- think. I do not need to post my CV and education
- background on this forum. If you don't agree with
- me why not say something logical for a change?

No need to post your CV, I have formed an image of you already. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


- If you're such a great modeller Jippo, why haven't
- you talked with the developers about ways to
- simulate refraction in thick glass?

I haven't???

- Why are you a
- volunteer modeller? Shouldn't 1C:Maddox be
- paying you if you were any good? I hear Gibbage is
- getting money for his models.....

Because this is just my hobby. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Oleg can pay if he wants, I'm just doing this for fun. Not for you, but for the people who are actually polite and nice FB fans. Also I'm a big fan of FB, and I want to fly my favourite planes in it.

In fact, I can recommend modelling to anyone who wants to really learn about such airplanes. It has made me ask many questions that I wouldn't have even thought otherwise. It also makes one find answers to them, and research is great.

In real life I'm an architect, and that's why I've learned modelling in the first place. I get my money from there, but it is always the same, you know.

Modelling planes is just plain fun. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


-jippo



Message Edited on 10/01/0301:31PM by Jippo01

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:44 PM
Col.Tomb wrote:
- If you're such a great modeller Jippo, why haven't
- you talked with the developers about ways to
- simulate refraction in thick glass? Why are you a
- volunteer modeller? Shouldn't 1C:Maddox be
- paying you if you were any good? I hear Gibbage is
- getting money for his models.....


Sorry but this is BS. You've just shown your stupidity. Your comment is waaay out of place.

Jippo did a great job on the Stuka cockpits, as is doing now with the Ju88. He did a great contribution to the community and I think he deserves some respect.

BTW, no 3rd party modellers are paid. Gibbage was not paid for his Catalina model AFAIK. He MAY get paid if there is a commercial add-on with 3rd party planes, but I'm not sure. Being paid is not a question of how good your model is. If you remember, Oleg himself gave the best 3d modelling award to Shane and Avirex for his work on the 262 pit, and they were not paid, again AFAIK.

If I were Jippo I would be disgusted people like you will also enjoy my work.





|TAO|

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:15 PM
At first, a remark, I can't understand why it is impossible to discuss of a single thing here without such a bad spirit /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Back to the subject of the topic. I would like to see in my virtual cockpit a good recreation of what a real pilot sees.

If that needs to tweak very lightly the width of the canopy frames, it's ok for me. It's just a matter of some millimeters, not a question of building a completely wrong 3D model of the frames.

In the many topics about the 190 visibility, it has been shown that to cut only a few millimeters from the "infamous" bar would do the job.

When I look at the 3d model of the Spit cockpit, I've the feeling that the frames look train rails, even if they are geometrically correct. I would prefer a few minor changes in the design of these frames to get an approximation of what the pilot really sees.

So, to resume, I'm sure it could be possible to find a "just middle" between a blueprint accuracy and what an real pilot sees in his cockpit.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:23 PM
Honestly, when I look at the frames in your 3D cockpit (which can be Ok, geometrically I can admit it) and when I look at the frames on this pic...

http://community.webshots.com/scripts/editPhotos.fcgi?action=showMyPhoto&albumID=86052301&photoID=92858753&security=NSCnfe

... I've not the feeling of looking at the same aircraft type. That's why I think some minor tweaking on the frame is necessary to get a good recreation of what the pilot actually sees.

Cheers,


http://community.webshots.com/s/image6/5/87/53/92858753NSCnfe_ph.jpg




Message Edited on 10/01/0302:23PM by CHDT

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:26 PM
CWOS

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:39 PM
Splee!

<center>http://www.spyderco.com/assets/product_images/medium/C07.jpg

'Smoke and a pancake?'</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 04:01 PM
CHDT

I see your point, but I just don't find a good idea for a Sim to reinvent aircraft cockpits.

I guess an idea like "Oh! let's make the joystick transparent because it obstructs my view of that instrument" sounds good to you? Or "remove cockpit bars because in RL with a little move of my head I could see behind it".
It's not very different from what you are suggesting...

I say, keep the cockpits as they were, and wait until flight sims can emulate glass refraction in real time.

If you are not happy with current technology to simulate cockpits, you can always play no cockpit, I tell you sincerely.







|TAO|

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 04:09 PM
Col.Tomb wrote:
- If you're such a great modeller Jippo, why haven't
- you talked with the developers about ways to
- simulate refraction in thick glass? Why are you a
- volunteer modeller? Shouldn't 1C:Maddox be
- paying you if you were any good? I hear Gibbage is
- getting money for his models.....

Tomb, it'd be a great idea if you would simply "lose" your password to these forums and save me the effort of PMing moderators to get your account killed.

Thanks.



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
10-01-2003, 07:12 PM
Tomb is such an idiot...they say crap...yet what do they do for the community? Troll the boards disrespecting modellers that put hundreds of hours into something we're enjoying. Makes me sick.

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 07:38 PM
1st thing i noticed was the side bars don't narrow as they go down.
Is this what people mean when they say they are talking about "refraction" ?

(sorry didn't follow the 190 debate much, just seemed teribly unpleasant.

i want it to look as much as possible like i would see it if i took a pic sittin in the cockpit looking forward.

I guess truning your head to the side in the game might then make the view a little wrong but i still think this view is the most important

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 09:17 PM
Jesus fecking Christ.

<center>http://www.btinternet.com/~lenazavaroni/images/tva_01a.jpg

<font size="+4">What a fox!</font></center>

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 12:34 AM
Struts? Bars? The correct expression, I believe, is canopy or windshield frame. It does seem to me that the framing is represented to be a little thicker than it would appear to any viewer with two eyes. I guess that's one of the advantages of binocular vision...

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" - LCOL Don Blakeslee, CO, 4th FG, March, 1944

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 12:55 AM
The more i compare the pick with the cockpit it seems that the reason the frame doesn't seem to narrow may be because the top is too narrow, rather than the bottom being too wide. Interesting. Oh well glad someone else is worrying about it instead of me. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


I am really impressed by the work these people do BTW & I can't wait to fly the Spitfire & that Spit XIV with the clipped wings is really sweet.

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 01:37 AM
yes it is a tad large i guess

well my name was spelled wrong