PDA

View Full Version : Request for historical cockpit view



XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:51 PM
position of internal viewpoints (pilot eyes) and also position of internal cockpit modells are off relative to the plane modell (wings, tail, weapons, ...)


I would like the internal views to be corrected, if this is possible, to get the historical views.


JtD has shown the errors for FW190 and La5 here:
http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvtei

I don't want this to get lost in the hole 190 discussion

quiet_man

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:51 PM
position of internal viewpoints (pilot eyes) and also position of internal cockpit modells are off relative to the plane modell (wings, tail, weapons, ...)


I would like the internal views to be corrected, if this is possible, to get the historical views.


JtD has shown the errors for FW190 and La5 here:
http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvtei

I don't want this to get lost in the hole 190 discussion

quiet_man

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 03:19 AM
Ho my funky god, another fw190 threat, when will they learn, dam it, well at least i am in before the lock



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

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 06:00 AM
quiet_man ::
-- don't want this to get lost in the hole

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

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 06:20 AM
give the D9 the TA152 Cockpitview because it‚¬īs more similar than a 190A cockpit.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/kubanskiloewe/110missing.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 09:36 PM
Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- Ho my funky god, another fw190 threat, when will
- they learn, dam it, well at least i am in before the
- lock
-

tunnel vision? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
or do you think only the 190s suffer from that?

I speak about all planes! It was shown for the 190 and La5, but there might be others.

Maybe the cockpits where moved around to give you a nice view over the instruments. I would like to see them where they where in reality.

quiet_man

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 06:23 PM
Ho my funky god, Aztek Eagle trolled another thread!
(bump)

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 03:25 PM
tolwyn.com wrote:
- Ho my funky god, Aztek Eagle trolled another thread!
yea

- (bump)
also yea /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

someone else wants historical cockpit views?

quiet_man

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 03:57 PM
quiet_man wrote:
-
- position of internal viewpoints (pilot eyes) and
- also position of internal cockpit modells are off
- relative to the plane modell (wings, tail, weapons,
- ...)



I'm sorry but this is absolute rubbish!!! Where did you get such an idea?? And where is your proof? You must know something that the modellors don't.


Absolute BS!


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 04:15 PM
Dont be so quick to bash people Jippo.. Modellers aint gods you know ..

I would be most happy to read on what bases some modellers made the view points from different aircrafts..

Because there is lots of variation ..Some have modelled the normal sight high example in LA5 and in some like FW190 very low.

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 04:53 PM
alarmer wrote:

- Because there is lots of variation ..Some have
- modelled the normal sight high example in LA5 and in
- some like FW190 very low.


I've been probably the first one to mention that there might be something to look at in La-5 in these forums.

But:

"position of internal viewpoints (pilot eyes) and also position of internal cockpit modells are off relative to the plane modell"

is nothing but a troll!


Cockpit models are off relative to the plane model? All of them? BS.

And he just claims without proof...

I have done enough modelling for the damn game to know that it is much easier to do things correctly than try to do them wrong.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 06:29 PM
Hi Jippo01!

Since quietman linked a thread I started, I am in here, too.

I checked the eyes position on two planes thoroughly and found them to be wrong, I had a short look on several others which also appeard to be wrong.

Now I have no idea about 3-D modeling, but there certainly are mistakes, no matter where they are from. Simple geometry. 3-D modelers surely aren't perfect and even if they try to do thinks correct, there might be mistakes. And it also appears to me, that correctness wasn't neccessarily the highest priority.

The eyes are 41.5 cm behind the sight in the FW 190 cockpit model normal view. 100% sure
The very same eyes however are just 20-25 cm behind the sight if you take their position relative to the 3-D plane model. 100% sure
So the FW 190 cockpit model is somewhere in the wrong place on the plane, 15-20 cm to much towards the front. very sure

La-5FN cockpit is to high (100%), Yak-9 cockpit is to high (IIRC).

I don't really care about cockpits beeing to high, because they offer better visibility and I am grateful for that. It is just more fun not to fly blind. But it's not realistic.

Different matter with the FW 190, the big distance to the sight limits visibility. Gives you a better glance at the instruments. Thats no fun (and for Online play a little unfair).
This matter is certainly no BS.

If you ever put a cockpit model into a plane model, I'd be realy grateful if you could tell me how this is done. How do you know it is in the correct position? How is it done anyway? What is the problem with implementing it a bit higher/more forward if any? How does size matter? Couldn't you just implement a cockpit model 125% the actual size?

Anyway, I think this matter is better dealt with in General Discussion, since Oleg already had a look and didn't think there is anything to change. (Sadly) This topic is done for him.

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 06:46 PM
You are talking about the viewpoint or the camera being in different heights relatively to the cockpit. Not cockpit being higher or lower, aren't you? That has to do with the gunsight placing in the cockpit wrong or right, not putting the whole cockpit in to a wrong place.

Cockpit model is combined with the actual external model, and they are fitted together to match each other exactly. You will look at the blueprints all the time doing the model. Misaligning/re-inventing the pits might cause problems elsewhere, so there really is NO point doing that on purpose.

You might have done some research, but you are trying to prove something that is very hard to prove. I will not buy any of that without proof, sorry. With proof, that is a different story.


In addition, if this thread is really about 190. You are wasting your time. Model that is few percent accurate is accurate enough, and it has been proved to be that accurate. Fly with it and have fun.



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 06:59 PM
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~argylestransom/Pics/Fw190.jpg
</center>

I think this is great, guys.
Maybe Oleg could make us some glass bottom FW-190s. I want to sneak up on targets while looking down through the rudder pedals.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~argylestransom/Pics/A10Bun.jpg

Waiting for Lomac
</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 07:28 PM
10 points for originality-
S!




http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 08:18 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- You are talking about the viewpoint or the camera
- being in different heights relatively to the
- cockpit. Not cockpit being higher or lower, aren't
- you?

I am talking about the cockpit being higher or lower. The viewpoint is one step towards the cockpit position, however. (From my findings) I.e: The point of view in FB in a La-5FN is about 12-15 cm above the nose. From drawings I'd say it is about 7 cm. With 7 cm, you'll have a head clearance of about 15cm, with 12-15 it would be 10-7cm head clearance, making the head stick out of the canopy. Ouch.
But much more important in respect to the cockpit position: With your head this high, you should be able to see the nose of the plane immediatly behind the windshield, but you dont. In FB you can't even see the ShVAK dents, they are blocked by the cockpit. This clearly indicates that the lower rim of the cockpit, together with your point of view, the horizontal struts and the gunsight are just to high in this plane. This is same same thing in a Yak-9 and similar with a FW 190. I can imagine that this is because of clipping issues.
I am convinced that this aspect of the model is not correct.

- That has to do with the gunsight placing in the
- cockpit wrong or right, not putting the whole
- cockpit in to a wrong place.

I don't think it's only about sight position. I generally took the lower rim of the windshield in account, too.


- Cockpit model is combined with the actual external
- model, and they are fitted together to match each
- other exactly. You will look at the blueprints all
- the time doing the model. Misaligning/re-inventing
- the pits might cause problems elsewhere, so there
- really is NO point doing that on purpose.

Not even clipping issues?

(I can imagine that it is truly hard work and I don't want to miscredit anybody who did or is doing great jobs with the planes in IL-2. Question is just for my interest.)

- You might have done some research, but you are
- trying to prove something that is very hard to
- prove. I will not buy any of that without proof,
- sorry. With proof, that is a different story.

That's totally up to you, I think I have a (proven) point and I know I will not change a thing. I won't go any further than I already did.

- In addition, if this thread is really about 190. You
- are wasting your time. Model that is few percent
- accurate is accurate enough, and it has been proved
- to be that accurate. Fly with it and have fun.

As soon as I have finished my Russian fighter career. :-)

XyZspineZyX
07-04-2003, 11:20 PM
JtD wrote:

- Not even clipping issues?
-
- (I can imagine that it is truly hard work and I
- don't want to miscredit anybody who did or is doing
- great jobs with the planes in IL-2. Question is just
- for my interest.)

In my experienece, no. For the He 162, it was just a matter of fitting the cockpit model into the external model so that it was aligned correctly. All I then did (IIRC) was delete the canopy framing and glass that is rendered by the external, because it's not necessary to see it from the cockpit and it would cause clipping problems.

http://www.il2center.com/Axis/Germany/17/16.jpg


A really old (and freakin' ugly /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ) development photo, but it shows what it looks like when the glass and canopy framing from the exterior model has not been removed.

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/11apr/He-162_WIP_3.jpg


Canopy framing and glass (plus other extraneous external model polys ) have been removed

I/JG54^Lukas
He 162A-2 Cockpit Modeler


Message Edited on 07/04/0305:22PM by JG54_Lukas

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 03:20 PM
JG54_Lukas wrote:
- In my experienece, no. For the He 162, it was just a
- matter of fitting the cockpit model into the
- external model so that it was aligned correctly. All
- I then did (IIRC) was delete the canopy framing and
- glass that is rendered by the external, because it's
- not necessary to see it from the cockpit and it
- would cause clipping problems.

but you don't know how the other modells where done?

the La5 error is without doubt. Start FMB with La5, put the wingtip over some point of the landscape and hit pause, switch to external and also bring the wingtip over this point, the horizontal cockpit struts are right in your line of view. In internal view their position is ~100mm higher.

also compare the Yak9 and Yak3 forward view when pushing negative g's. you can easily see the engine cowling in the Yak9 but nothing in Yak3. if you watch the Yak3 from low forward, the view to the pilot is blocked by the engine, not by the cockpit frame. So the pilot sits lower or the cockpit is raised in internal view. From the wingtip test I would say the cockpit of the Yak3 is set to high.

quiet_man

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 04:09 PM
quiet_man wrote:
-
- JG54_Lukas wrote:
-- In my experienece, no. For the He 162, it was just a
-- matter of fitting the cockpit model into the
-- external model so that it was aligned correctly. All
-- I then did (IIRC) was delete the canopy framing and
-- glass that is rendered by the external, because it's
-- not necessary to see it from the cockpit and it
-- would cause clipping problems.
-
- but you don't know how the other modells where done?


All the models are done exactly the same way.



- the La5 error is without doubt. Start FMB with La5,
- put the wingtip over some point of the landscape and
- hit pause, switch to external and also bring the
- wingtip over this point, the horizontal cockpit
- struts are right in your line of view. In internal
- view their position is ~100mm higher.

This kind of errors are very hard to verify, and it is much easier to set the cockpit in place in 3d studio. I still don't understand why a modeller would like to make his/her life more difficult by making errors on purpose?

I have many very good 3-way drawings about the planes I'm working on at the moment. They differ from each other very often 100mm there and other 50mm elsewhere. And these drawings are from recognised publications. WW2 plane modelling is not exact science. I would trust the external model to be done first and internal with more detail and maybe different/more accurate drawings later.


If you want to challenge La-5FN cockpit modelling, find a nice section drawing along the plane's centerline. Use the drawing to see if the height of the air intake and the height of the gunsight are correct in relation.



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 04:38 PM
I believe Oleg posted a while ago not to use the external views as reference in combination with the internal cockpit views and compare like that for exact mesurements.

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

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 05:36 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- quiet_man wrote:
--
-- but you don't know how the other modells where done?
-
-
- All the models are done exactly the same way.

I'm speaking about the process of making (or here placing) the cockpit.
And as far as I understand, every modeller is free on how he finds the "right" place for the cockpit.
(correct me if I'm wrong)


- This kind of errors are very hard to verify, and it
- is much easier to set the cockpit in place in 3d
- studio. I still don't understand why a modeller
- would like to make his/her life more difficult by
- making errors on purpose?

hmmm, to get the "right" view for aiming?


-
- I have many very good 3-way drawings about the
- planes I'm working on at the moment. They differ
- from each other very often 100mm there and other
- 50mm elsewhere. And these drawings are from
- recognised publications. WW2 plane modelling is not
- exact science. I would trust the external model to
- be done first and internal with more detail and
- maybe different/more accurate drawings later.

so you don't know the process how IL2 modells are done.
100mm is alot, I can't belive that Oleg uses drawings together that differ this much.

if this is a known bug that will not be corrected (to much work?) it's okey.
if it is not known, we should point it out and maybe we can help finding a way to avoid it in the future.


- If you want to challenge La-5FN cockpit modelling,
- find a nice section drawing along the plane's
- centerline. Use the drawing to see if the height of
- the air intake and the height of the gunsight are
- correct in relation.
-

isn't it enough to show the error with the wingtips?

yes it is possible that only the wings are wrong, but that would be easier for Oleg to check with the 3d modell (I hope so)


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
07-08-2003, 05:45 PM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
- I believe Oleg posted a while ago not to use the
- external views as reference in combination with the
- internal cockpit views and compare like that for
- exact mesurements.


that's why I called this thread "Request", if the cockpits are at wrong position (for wathever reason) I would like to convince Oleg to put them at the right place.

if not for FB than for the next flightsim

hmmm, and if I remember right, he spoke about the external pilot modell, not the cockpit.

quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 06:03 PM
quiet_man wrote:
-
- Jippo01 wrote:
--
-- quiet_man wrote:
---
--- but you don't know how the other modells where done?
--
--
-- All the models are done exactly the same way.
-
- I'm speaking about the process of making (or here
- placing) the cockpit.
- And as far as I understand, every modeller is free
- on how he finds the "right" place for the cockpit.
- (correct me if I'm wrong)

So am I. The right way to do it is to fit the cockpit model into the external model. That is the way how you find the right position. You just don't put it anywhere you please.


-- This kind of errors are very hard to verify, and it
-- is much easier to set the cockpit in place in 3d
-- studio. I still don't understand why a modeller
-- would like to make his/her life more difficult by
-- making errors on purpose?
-
- hmmm, to get the "right" view for aiming?

Modeller is trying to make correct cockpit, not views for aiming! Why should a modeller be bothered about making one plane better and other worse? It just makes it more complicated for him/her!


- so you don't know the process how IL2 modells are
- done.

I have made the three variants of Ju-87 for FB (including gunner positions) that you are flying with. I'm currently making three variants of flyable Ju-88's for FB. I think I know how the damn job is done.


- 100mm is alot, I can't belive that Oleg uses
- drawings together that differ this much.

You can believe what ever you like. Fact is that if you find a 3-way drawing of a plane, it is most likely incorrect in some part. Find three or four drawings and you'll be able to make a reasonable approximation of the most probable solution.


- if this is a known bug that will not be corrected
- (to much work?) it's okey.

What is a bug?


- if it is not known, we should point it out and maybe
- we can help finding a way to avoid it in the future.

Again avoid what?


-- If you want to challenge La-5FN cockpit modelling,
-- find a nice section drawing along the plane's
-- centerline. Use the drawing to see if the height of
-- the air intake and the height of the gunsight are
-- correct in relation.
--
-
- isn't it enough to show the error with the wingtips?
-
- yes it is possible that only the wings are wrong,
- but that would be easier for Oleg to check with the
- 3d modell (I hope so)


If you are of the opinion that something in the game is incorrect, you have to prove it. Maddox Games probably thinks they did it correctly in the first place.

You can go around proving things your way, no problem with me. I just gave you the easiest road, you don't have to take it.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 06:05 PM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
- I believe Oleg posted a while ago not to use the
- external views as reference in combination with the
- internal cockpit views and compare like that for
- exact mesurements.
-

Absolutely, they are two different things. Cockpit model ‚¬īreplaces' the external model's cockpit area.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 07:40 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
-- so you don't know the process how IL2 modells are
-- done.
-
- I have made the three variants of Ju-87 for FB
- (including gunner positions) that you are flying
- with. I'm currently making three variants of flyable
- Ju-88's for FB. I think I know how the damn job is
- done.


thank you for your great work!
the expression "I would trust" led me to belive you don't know for sure.
But I'm also talking about La5 and Yak3, do you know how their cockpits where done?


-
- What is a bug?
-


Oleg said he want's IL2 to be historical correct.
I think we can take it for sure that the historical planes looked the same from internal and external /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


-
-
- If you are of the opinion that something in the game
- is incorrect, you have to prove it. Maddox Games
- probably thinks they did it correctly in the first
- place.


see the link in the first post of this thread and reread this thread.


-
- You can go around proving things your way, no
- problem with me. I just gave you the easiest road,
- you don't have to take it.


I don't understand you /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif You telling my the drawings have differences/errors as big as 100mm, the same time you say I should use one of this drawings to show the error?

I took the external modell as halfway accurate (maybe I'm wrong)
are your internal cockpit positions 100mm higher than in external view?

If 100mm differences can't be avoided it's okey. I don't "demand" I made a "request" (as far as my english goes this isn't as strong)

all I want is that this point is recognized and that is goes a bit higher in the list of things that could be improved now or later.


-
--jippo
-
-

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
07-08-2003, 07:49 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- Cappadocian_317 wrote:
-- I believe Oleg posted a while ago not to use the
-- external views as reference in combination with the
-- internal cockpit views and compare like that for
-- exact mesurements.
--
-
- Absolutely, they are two different things. Cockpit
- model ‚¬īreplaces' the external model's cockpit area.
-
-

and so the internal elements should be at the same positions like the external ones and not somewhere else.


quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 07:55 PM
quiet_man wrote:
-
- thank you for your great work!
- the expression "I would trust" led me to belive you
- don't know for sure.
- But I'm also talking about La5 and Yak3, do you know
- how their cockpits where done?

Of course I haven't followed every step the modellers take!

But I know how they do things.


--
-- What is a bug?
--
-
-
- Oleg said he want's IL2 to be historical correct.
- I think we can take it for sure that the historical
- planes looked the same from internal and external

Absolute accuracy will never be achieved in ANY game. Cockpits are very accurate historically as far as I can tell.


-
- see the link in the first post of this thread and
- reread this thread.

Reread my post: one should not compare external and internal models. External model has very little to do with the viewpoint inside the cockpit.



- You telling my the drawings
- have differences/errors as big as 100mm, the same
- time you say I should use one of this drawings to
- show the error?

Better yet have 3-4 sections through the centerline. More proof, better case. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I'm just suggesting that you can start that way.


- I took the external modell as halfway accurate
- (maybe I'm wrong)
- are your internal cockpit positions 100mm higher
- than in external view?

External have to much simpler than internal in cockpit detail for the game to run on a normal computer. DO NOT COMPARE THEM.


- If 100mm differences can't be avoided it's okey. I
- don't "demand" I made a "request" (as far as my
- english goes this isn't as strong)

Well I try to make as exact as possible, but probably there would be 100m mistake somewhere in my models if somebody would really look.

They are in every case made by using photographs and inherently inaccurate drawings (if they are not manufacturing drawings which I haven't had)

- all I want is that this point is recognized and that
- is goes a bit higher in the list of things that
- could be improved now or later.

Good idea as such, but we have seen very few corrections in cockpits/external models after their introduction.

It seems awfully difficult task to have such corrections made. Especially if the proof isn't absolutely water tight.



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 08:46 PM
@Jippo01

thank you for your answer.
when I have time again I will try to get better/more data on what I think is wrong.

Oleg said some plane modells will be overworked for future sim. Maybe than they can take a look at this.


quiet_man

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
07-09-2003, 12:51 PM
This thread was locked, wasn't it?

Thx for the info on 3-D modelling.

Jippo, please take a short ride in a La-5. Use the normal view (not gunsight view). You won't see the ShVAK dents. They hid behind the lower rim of the windshield. Now switch to external. The model is very accurate and fits nicely with the drawings I downloaded from a Russian server. (Don't know which one.) Now how is it possible that you can't see the ShVAK dents from inside? They cover almost half the nose and there is _nothing_ for them to hide behind. Nothing. Nishto. Nada. Niente. Nichts. Nanimo.

So why are they not visible? Because the cockpit model is to high. (Like I said before: Everything I checked in this cockpit is to high.)

What do you say about this?

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 01:00 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
--- If you want to challenge La-5FN cockpit modelling,
--- find a nice section drawing along the plane's
--- centerline. Use the drawing to see if the height of
--- the air intake and the height of the gunsight are
--- correct in relation.
---
--
-- isn't it enough to show the error with the wingtips?
--
-- yes it is possible that only the wings are wrong,
-- but that would be easier for Oleg to check with the
-- 3d modell (I hope so)
-
-
- If you are of the opinion that something in the game
- is incorrect, you have to prove it. Maddox Games
- probably thinks they did it correctly in the first
- place.
-
- You can go around proving things your way, no
- problem with me. I just gave you the easiest road,
- you don't have to take it.
-
-
--jippo
-
-


I don't want to write it many times.



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 03:01 PM
Oh Jippo. Looks like you missed my point entirely. I know it's wrong. If I was a teenager, I'd probably go on trying to prove this to everybody no matter who wants to listen and who doesn't want to.

Since noboady of any importance wants to listen, this mistake will not be changed. Period. Why should I waste my time proving things I know and nobody else cares about?

You don't have La-5 drawings? You can get some free in the net. Take a look for yourself if you are so eager to see drawings.

The only thing I want to know from you: Why, in your opinion, are the ShVAK dents not visible from the cockpit in FB?

Some little help (head position as in FB (not gunsight view)):

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

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 04:22 PM
JtD wrote:

- Oh Jippo. Looks like you missed my point entirely. I
- know it's wrong. If I was a teenager, I'd probably
- go on trying to prove this to everybody no matter
- who wants to listen and who doesn't want to.

You know it is wrong, great. Present it in a way that you can make your case, not everyone knows it is wrong!


- Since noboady of any importance wants to listen,
- this mistake will not be changed. Period. Why should
- I waste my time proving things I know and nobody
- else cares about?

I don't know. Maybe you should stop then?


- You don't have La-5 drawings? You can get some free
- in the net. Take a look for yourself if you are so
- eager to see drawings.

I do not want to see any drawings. I couldn't care less!

JUST DON'T USE EXTERNAL MODELS TO MAKE YOUR POINTS, USE PROPER DRAWINGS TO MAKE YOUR POINT.

It is a piece of friendly advice which you don't seem to understand. Crappy presentations won't certainly get you anywhere.


- The only thing I want to know from you: Why, in your
- opinion, are the ShVAK dents not visible from the
- cockpit in FB?

I have said two years ago that there is something fishy about La-5FN modelling. I do not know why it is like that and I don't care, as I have other things to keep me busy.

If you want to change something make a case not vague claims.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 05:00 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- You know it is wrong, great. Present it in a way
- that you can make your case, not everyone knows it
- is wrong!

Anybody willing to follow my argumentation should know by now. People whining *blueprint, blueprint* or *don't use the external model* will probably never understand. They are just to superficial.

- I don't know. Maybe you should stop then?

I did already. Just presenting the same arguments in different ways. Again, and again, and again. Doesn't take to much time.

- I do not want to see any drawings. I couldn't care
- less!
-
- JUST DON'T USE EXTERNAL MODELS TO MAKE YOUR POINTS,
- USE PROPER DRAWINGS TO MAKE YOUR POINT.
-
- It is a piece of friendly advice which you don't
- seem to understand. Crappy presentations won't
- certainly get you anywhere.

Just to make sure everybody understands:

EVEN THOUGH I USED THE EXTERNAL MODEL FOR PRESENTATION, I CHECKED ALL MY FINDINGS WITH A LOT OF BLOODY DRAWINGS AND FOUND THAT IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. THE LA-5FN COCKPIT POSITION IS BLOODY WRONG.

I can easily take a screenshot at whichever perspective I want. I than have it ready to host. Very different with drawings. I never thought that people are so stupid to read a text, learn what it says and forget before they see the picture it refers to.

And now I did put some drawings into my post, and it doesn't make any difference to you. What is the point with drawings?

- I have said two years ago that there is something
- fishy about La-5FN modelling. I do not know why it
- is like that and I don't care, as I have other
- things to keep me busy.

I wonder why you keep shouting at people who say it's wrong.

- If you want to change something make a case not
- vague claims.

You can either pay me or promise me that wrong things will be changed. But as it is now, I am working for free and won't change a thing. Otherwise making idiot-proof argumentation instead of think-with-me-argumantation is just a waste of time. As I said before, everybody willing to look into this will easily find out it's wrong, and how it's wrong, probably in a matter of minutes. I don't thing anybody will take anything for granted anyway, so their (whoever) job will remain the same. No matter what quality presentation.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 05:25 PM
JtD wrote:
-
- Anybody willing to follow my argumentation should
- know by now. People whining *blueprint, blueprint*
- or *don't use the external model* will probably
- never understand. They are just to superficial.

I'm sorry but that is the way world works, but maybe all the engineers are superficial?



- Just to make sure everybody understands:
-
- EVEN THOUGH I USED THE EXTERNAL MODEL FOR
- PRESENTATION, I CHECKED ALL MY FINDINGS WITH A LOT
- OF BLOODY DRAWINGS AND FOUND THAT IT DOESN'T MAKE
- ANY DIFFERENCE. THE LA-5FN COCKPIT POSITION IS
- BLOODY WRONG.

So use the drawings for your presentation as you seem to have them already at hand. Perspective image is a way too difficult tool for you to show things like these


- And now I did put some drawings into my post, and it
- doesn't make any difference to you. What is the
- point with drawings?

Point with drawings is that they are simplifications of the reality. They are easy to understand and read. That is why buildings, cars, ships and aeroplanes are built using plans and sections rather than perspective images.

I'm not interested in La5 cockpit, that is why I can not be bothered with your drawings.

Make a proper presentation and raise the awareness of the Maddox Games. If that doesn't work, but your presentation was exellent you may gather a flock diciples and become a virtual La-5 profet. When your following will reach 100000 I'm sure La5's will be corrected.


- I wonder why you keep shouting at people who say
- it's wrong.

You do not seem to be paying attention.


-- If you want to change something make a case not
-- vague claims.
-
- You can either pay me or promise me that wrong
- things will be changed.

I'm sorry, but I don't owe sh!t to you.


- But as it is now, I am
- working for free and won't change a thing. Otherwise
- making idiot-proof argumentation instead of
- think-with-me-argumantation is just a waste of time.
- As I said before, everybody willing to look into
- this will easily find out it's wrong, and how it's
- wrong, probably in a matter of minutes. I don't
- thing anybody will take anything for granted anyway,
- so their (whoever) job will remain the same. No
- matter what quality presentation.


So, the only reasonable solution seems to be stop whining then?


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 06:38 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- I'm sorry but that is the way world works,

Certainly not your fault.

- but maybe
- all the engineers are superficial?

Well, it depends. They most likely aren't superficial with their job/work, but might be superficial cleaning their cars, socks or dishes.

- So use the drawings for your presentation as you
- seem to have them already at hand.

MS Paint makes working with drawings very much a pain. Screenshots are easier for me, only about 50% the work.

- Perspective image
- is a way too difficult tool for you to show things
- like these

Didn't think so.

- Point with drawings is that they are simplifications
- of the reality. They are easy to understand and
- read. That is why buildings, cars, ships and
- aeroplanes are built using plans and sections rather
- than perspective images.

But in this case there is no thorough understanding neccesssary. It's so obvious. Just a quick glance. I'd use sketches instead of drawings IRL. Because it is so simple. In addition, the lighting of the 3-D model helps a little bit with the third dimension. I'd need at least two blueprints instead of one screenshot.

- Make a proper presentation and raise the awareness
- of the Maddox Games. If that doesn't work, but your
- presentation was exellent you may gather a flock
- diciples and become a virtual La-5 profet. When your
- following will reach 100000 I'm sure La5's will be
- corrected.

Now thats an idea. :-)

- You do not seem to be paying attention.

Well, you don't seem to have an opinion regarding the issue, only regarding the presentation. Imho this is a bit strange.

- I'm sorry, but I don't owe sh!t to you.

I am fully aware of this. This lead me to the same conclusion you ended up with:

- So, the only reasonable solution seems to be stop
- whining then?

Only thing is: I am not whining. I never did, I never will.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 07:00 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- alarmer wrote:
-
-- Because there is lots of variation ..Some have
-- modelled the normal sight high example in LA5 and in
-- some like FW190 very low.
-
-
- I've been probably the first one to mention that
- there might be something to look at in La-5 in these
- forums.


That is my opinion of it and has been for two years now. I just don't have any proof to show if it is so or not, nor do I have the time/energy to find the proof. I very rarely fly La-5 so it isn't an issue to me.

If somebody would make a proper case of it we could have a very interesting discussion about the matter, but until that is done there is very little to talk about. Hence the rant about presentation.

In my profession plans, sections and perspectives are my tools. I know exactly how difficult perspectives are and how one can even mislead people with perspective image. Plans and sections (and 3d models when one can measure them) are the truth, perspective is something that somebody wants you to see.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 08:19 PM
Bun-Bun1953 wrote:
- <center>
- <img
- src="http://home.comcast.net/~argylestransom/Pics/
- Fw190.jpg">
- </center>
-
- I think this is great, guys.
- Maybe Oleg could make us some glass bottom FW-190s.
- I want to sneak up on targets while looking down
- through the rudder pedals.
-


Hey! That's my drawing! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Atleast give me some credit for it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>
---------------------------------------
"Atleast I'll go down in style!"
http://www.elleemmeshop.com/model1/aero/re4341.jpg
</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 08:45 PM
Jippo01 wrote:

- His opinion again.

Okay, my mistake. I know and knew your opinion. I meant to say that our argument has not been about the cockpit but about presentation only. I don't like arguments about the envelope, I rather go for the contens. Just feels strange to me.

- And more.

Usually if I give my word for something, I can trust me. :-)
So you might as well.

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 12:47 PM
@Jippo01
I'm not sure what you wan't to show here.

1. you best argument until now was "perspective images are to difficult" and this I find a very weak one.

2. you say your not interested but still demand more prove?

3. who is whining?
A possible error on modelling was shown and a request for improvement was started, is this how you define "whining"?


this thread is for people who:
-think they can show a cockpit error
-think they can show a cockpit in question is right
-want to support cockpit change (if its shown to be wrong)
-want to support no cockpit change (even if its wrong)
everything else is "whining" or "trolling"
(hope I didn't forgot one)

so where do you fit in?

it is free for everone including Maddox to ignore this thread



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

Message Edited on 07/10/0311:52AM by quiet_man

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 12:54 PM
http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/ju87inside.jpg

^^ /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Only that right flap has changed in FB. Don'T wat to start another thread that would be locked /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .


<hr>

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

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

</p><font color=59626B>

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 01:02 PM
JtD, You mean the big bulge on the nose of the La5-FN cannot be seen from the cockpit?

Just want to make sure you mean the FN model because I don't know how it looks on your PC but since it's the very same software I have and I do see it, it's even blocking the lower part of the gunsight making it hard to make decent deflection shots.

If the entire cockpit is lowered 10 cm then the bulge blocks the entire gunsight.

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

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 01:11 PM
quiet_man wrote:
- @Jippo01
- I'm not sure what you wan't to show here.
-
- 1. you best argument until now was "perspective
- images are to difficult" and this I find a very weak
- one.

Fine, have it your way.


- 2. you say your not interested but still demand more
- prove?

I don't demand anything. I gave you A FRIENDLY ADVICE as I have said few times already. I do not care too much about your quest as I said few times as well, as La-5 is not one of the planes I fly.

You can be sure that it is the last advice I ever give to you two as you only want to argue about it!


- 3. who is whining?

You two?


- A possible error on modelling was shown and a
- request for improvement was started, is this how you
- define "whining"?

I haven't seen anything shown in this thread. Only demands of various things.


- this thread is for people who:
--think they can show a cockpit error

Which nobody has done in this thread.


--think they can show a cockpit in question is right

Everything is correct, until shown incorrect. That is not my idea, again just the way world works.


--want to support cockpit change (if its shown to be wrong)
--want to support no cockpit change (even if its wrong)
- everything else is "whining" or "trolling"

So does your original post belong to the latter category?

"position of internal viewpoints (pilot eyes) and also position of internal cockpit modells are off relative to the plane modell (wings, tail, weapons, ...)


I would like the internal views to be corrected, if this is possible, to get the historical views."


- (hope I didn't forgot one)
-
- so where do you fit in?

Helping?

Don't worry, I won't bother wasting my time with the two of you. It is in any case complete waste of time.

Have everything your way.


-
- it is free for everone including Maddox to ignore
- this thread

It sure as hell is!



-jippo



Message Edited on 07/10/0312:15PM by Jippo01

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 01:14 PM
@all
thinking twice, I find it absolute valid to compare the external/internal modells to find errors.

historical information contains very different data, so there is no point showing that the modell is wrong compared to one special printing.
(if it's not the "official Maddox reference print" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

It might be impossible to prevent differences between internal and external modell but they should be minimized.
So I think it is okey to show significant differences.

for the La5 the difference is so big, it's absolutely sure there is an error, I never saw any La picture with an 100mm gap in front of the cockpit.



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
07-10-2003, 01:22 PM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
- JtD, You mean the big bulge on the nose of the
- La5-FN cannot be seen from the cockpit?

no, the guns bulges

- If the entire cockpit is lowered 10 cm then the
- bulge blocks the entire gunsight.

yes, and I don't think this would be right.
I don't know how they got the view we have at the moment (moving, rotating, ...)

but even Jippo01 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif say's its a bit wired.



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
07-10-2003, 01:25 PM
I just have to add:

Do you at all understand how stupid you are?


Let's imagine that Penn produces two sized tennis balls, so only one can be the official size.

Your equivalent would be a guy going around with these two balls and claiming that the small one is two small because the big one is bigger, without bothering to check rules of tennis to see what is the official ball size for the game!


I'm devastated... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


Just do yourselves a favor and read all my posts again, and you may pick some point that could help you.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 01:40 PM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
- JtD, You mean the big bulge on the nose of the
- La5-FN cannot be seen from the cockpit?

No, that is an air intake. There are two smaller bulges closer to the cockpit (left and right). The ShVAK cannons are mounted there. When you switch to gunsight view (Shift F1) you can see the left one appear above the lower cockpit rim.

- If the entire cockpit is lowered 10 cm then the
- bulge blocks the entire gunsight.

By my estimation the gunsight line is currently 14 cm above the nose and should be only 7cm. Therefore visiblity would be about half.

Surely we use the same software. :-)

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 01:44 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- I just have to add:
-
- Do you at all understand how stupid you are?

no

-
-
- Let's imagine that Penn produces two sized tennis
- balls, so only one can be the official size.
-
- Your equivalent would be a guy going around with
- these two balls and claiming that the small one is
- two small because the big one is bigger, without
- bothering to check rules of tennis to see what is
- the official ball size for the game!

but they don't use balls of different size in the same game?

-
-
- I'm devastated... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif )

there must be a basic misunderstanding!
may we have a final try?

I take three points:
internal viewpoint (call it pilots eye)
wingtip
and something at the landscape

if this three point are in a single line from internal view, shouldn't they in single line in external?

if I'm straight aiming at something, the internal viewpoint, the HUD and the target are in a line and this should be the same for external view?

for the La5 there is a significant difference between internal/external, for other planes not or not as strong


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
07-10-2003, 02:20 PM
quiet_man wrote:
-
- to be real, I think your posts are serious but they
- don't fit to what I'm thinking about (and I think
- I'm halfway intelligent
- there must be a basic misunderstanding!
- may we have a final try?

Ok, but this is the last time.


- I take three points:
- internal viewpoint (call it pilots eye)
- wingtip
- and something at the landscape

This is basically a correct assumption, but it includes a sh.tload of possibilities for error(already the size of pixel at the distant object may change the result a lot, not to mention other factors) and gives only result true/untrue without really complicated mathematics.

To me, just guessing, the error marginal of the measuring method already easily exceeds the 100mm error claimed to be in the model. Remember that you are working in 3d trying to do measurements from 2d image without a set frame of reference. That is nearly impossible especially with such a complicated, free form object as an airplane.


- if this three point are in a single line from
- internal view, shouldn't they in single line in
- external?

How can you be sure they are single line? The method involves using several meters object in diminsioning few centimetre difference.


- if I'm straight aiming at something, the internal
- viewpoint, the HUD and the target are in a line and
- this should be the same for external view?

You do not know where the hud or pilots view point are in the external model because they are not necessarily the same. External models are simplified by nature, and there could be several reasons to place some part (eg. gunsight) "unrealistically" to achieve e.g. lower polycount (or something else, there are endless reasons).


- for the La5 there is a significant difference
- between internal/external, for other planes not or
- not as strong

There may be differences or not. If we can agree there are differences, we also have to agree WHERE the difference is, and that's the place where it gets complicated.

Thus proper research is needed to get the changes in. They may not even change anything with proper research, but then there is atleast a change.

Your best chance is to use a section and straight forward view to determine the distance from the viewpoint to the gunsight in the internal model. Then you can determine with trigonometry if the air intake is on correct height relative to the sight line. This also includes marginal for error of few centimetres in the height(but will certainly be in the right region), but is in any case much more accurate method then the previously mentioned comparison. This method can also be very easily checked, and people can verify themselves if your claim is correct or not.

If you use several sections through the plane you can verify them in relation to each other and thus be sure the drawing you are using is most likely quite correct.


-jippo


Ps. And you have to use airintake as a reference as it is directly under the sightline, and it's height can easily be determined from the drawings. If we presume that the external model is relatively correct the cannon bulges will be in the right place when the intake is in the right place.




Message Edited on 07/10/0301:25PM by Jippo01

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 02:48 PM
JtD wrote:
- By my estimation the gunsight line is currently 14
- cm above the nose and should be only 7cm. Therefore
- visiblity would be about half.

Ya right, half the gunsight should be blocked by the air intake?

That way the gunsight is completely useless.

If this was the case in real life then there is no way the LA5FN was voted one of the best frontline fighters on the East front by the men who flew them.

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

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 03:08 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- quiet_man wrote:
--
- Ok, but this is the last time.


thank you


-
-
-- I take three points:
-- internal viewpoint (call it pilots eye)
-- wingtip
-- and something at the landscape
-
- This is basically a correct assumption, but it
- includes a sh.tload of possibilities for
- error(already the size of pixel at the distant
- object may change the result a lot, not to mention
- other factors) and gives only result true/untrue
- without really complicated mathematics.
-
- To me, just guessing, the error marginal of the
- measuring method already easily exceeds the 100mm
- error claimed to be in the model. Remember that you
- are working in 3d trying to do measurements from 2d
- image without a set frame of reference. That is
- nearly impossible especially with such a
- complicated, free form object as an airplane.
-
-
-- if this three point are in a single line from
-- internal view, shouldn't they in single line in
-- external?
-
- How can you be sure they are single line? The method
- involves using several meters object in diminsioning
- few centimetre difference.
-
-
-- if I'm straight aiming at something, the internal
-- viewpoint, the HUD and the target are in a line and
-- this should be the same for external view?
-
- You do not know where the hud or pilots view point
- are in the external model because they are not
- necessarily the same. External models are simplified
- by nature, and there could be several reasons to
- place some part (eg. gunsight) "unrealistically" to
- achieve e.g. lower polycount (or something else,
- there are endless reasons).
-


you are basically right, but if you select the landscape point very very far away (), any small change of angle will create a big difference

taking the wingtip as axis select an landscape point about 5000m away, assuming that the distance wingtip-cockpit is about 5m, moving the viewpoint by 100mm higher/lower changes the position of the landscape point significant

the projecten takes some away, (so it's not *1000), but still enough to see, you can also reduce the projecten effect by selecting 30 degree pov


-
-- for the La5 there is a significant difference
-- between internal/external, for other planes not or
-- not as strong
-
- There may be differences or not. If we can agree
- there are differences, we also have to agree WHERE
- the difference is, and that's the place where it
- gets complicated.
-
- Thus proper research is needed to get the changes
- in. They may not even change anything with proper
- research, but then there is atleast a change.
-
- Your best chance is to use a section and straight
- forward view to determine the distance from the
- viewpoint to the gunsight in the internal model.
- Then you can determine with trigonometry if the air
- intake is on correct height relative to the sight
- line. This also includes marginal for error of few
- centimetres in the height(but will certainly be in
- the right region), but is in any case much more
- accurate method then the previously mentioned
- comparison. This method can also be very easily
- checked, and people can verify themselves if your
- claim is correct or not.
-
- If you use several sections through the plane you
- can verify them in relation to each other and thus
- be sure the drawing you are using is most likely
- quite correct.
-


you are right, but for the special case of the La5 I think the above method already shows it. I think with an 3d viewer and the original IL2 modells it should be very easy to check, by simply moving the viewpoint so you can see internal cockpit and external modell?

realy I think it's only a minor problem and other things should be looked at first. But it should not be forgotten!


-
--jippo
-
-
- Ps. And you have to use airintake as a reference as
- it is directly under the sightline, and it's height
- can easily be determined from the drawings. If we
- presume that the external model is relatively
- correct the cannon bulges will be in the right place
- when the intake is in the right place.
-

thank you again, now I think were on the same line /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I think this showed again how adictiv IL2 is, with people heartfull engaged in discussions about tiny things.

lets hope the "drug-low-people" never find our little community /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



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
07-10-2003, 03:16 PM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
-
- JtD wrote:
-- By my estimation the gunsight line is currently 14
-- cm above the nose and should be only 7cm. Therefore
-- visiblity would be about half.
-
- Ya right, half the gunsight should be blocked by the
- air intake?
-
- That way the gunsight is completely useless.
-
- If this was the case in real life then there is no
- way the LA5FN was voted one of the best frontline
- fighters on the East front by the men who flew them.
-

on what discussion does this remember me? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

no serious, maybe the gunsight was modelled to low and they solved the problem by raising the hole cockpit?



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

ZG77_Nagual
07-10-2003, 03:17 PM
Just want to chime in here with a simple thing. Little variations - say from side to side - in the relative view are quite reasonable and true. In fact they may contribute to the sense of immersion since are heads seldom rotate on a precisely centered immoveable axis when we turn them. So, maybe when you look left the view of the wing is a bit different than when you look right. Obviously this would be the case in the 190 because the gunsight is off center, but also in other ostensibly bilaterally symetrical aircraft because of variations in movement of the pilot.

Just not wanting this to get too micro.

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

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 03:25 PM
quiet_man wrote:
-
- Cappadocian_317 wrote:
--
-- JtD wrote:
--- By my estimation the gunsight line is currently 14
--- cm above the nose and should be only 7cm. Therefore
--- visiblity would be about half.
--
-- Ya right, half the gunsight should be blocked by the
-- air intake?
--
-- That way the gunsight is completely useless.
--
-- If this was the case in real life then there is no
-- way the LA5FN was voted one of the best frontline
-- fighters on the East front by the men who flew them.
--
-
- on what discussion does this remember me?
- no serious, maybe the gunsight was modelled to low
- and they solved the problem by raising the hole
- cockpit?

If your refering to the FW190 gunsight being blocked then I like to add that the gunsight for the LA5-FN is blocked just as much right now but so far I have not seen tons of threads complaining about that.

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

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 03:33 PM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
- Ya right, half the gunsight should be blocked by the
- air intake?

I am not certain if we have the same understanding of "half the gunsight.

- That way the gunsight is completely useless.

No, its not. And even if so, it isn't my fault.


- If this was the case in real life then there is no
- way the LA5FN was voted one of the best frontline
- fighters on the East front by the men who flew them.

I disagree. It would still get my vote until 1944.

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 03:56 PM
I am beginning to see why this thread was locked in the first place.

I tried to look for LA5FN full cockpit pictures but since you claim it's too high then show me a picture from inside a LA5FN cockpit that supports your claim.

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

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 05:36 PM
I thought everything is about drawings.

(I sometimes wonder what some people use there eyes for.)

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 07:21 PM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
- I am beginning to see why this thread was locked in
- the first place.
-
- I tried to look for LA5FN full cockpit pictures but
- since you claim it's too high then show me a picture
- from inside a LA5FN cockpit that supports your
- claim.
-
- <center> http://www.322squadron.com/images/322.gif
- </center>
-

stay calm

I doubt that the pilots wouldn't commended on the gunsight if it had been this much blocked.

but maybe we found the cause why the cockpit was set higher

1. on the few blueprints I have the gunsight looks as high as the horizontal cockpit struts, without head movement this might have reduced the sideview to much, so they set it lower

2. the La5 had armored front glas, that would add refraction (didn't I say this remembers me of something /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

maybe thats why finaly the hole cockpit was lifted to give the correct forward view



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
07-10-2003, 11:22 PM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
- If your refering to the FW190 gunsight being blocked
- then I like to add that the gunsight for the LA5-FN
- is blocked just as much right now but so far I have
- not seen tons of threads complaining about that.

Or the MiG-3. Easy that. No accouts that tell it having a better forward view than XYZ. For FW... Eric Brown is just one example: Better forward view than 109 and Spit. I also read somewhere better than P-51 IIRC. That's why it's a topic. And there are 3‚? just in the Revi according to FW manual - that'S what we have, too. But it's blocked by the bar, so it's only ~2‚?. And I bet that you can somehow get a higher POV in the plane than straight-though-the-gunsight. Either "stretch" yourself or just put the head back into the neck (as if you're looking forward up), this alone can move the eyes up 5cm - which would help a lot in the FW and the La-7 or Chaika (Chaika's iron gunsight blocks the sight very much, or that tiny gunsight in La-7 which makes visibility right below the center worse than in La-5FN). But less in other planes. But I want a higher normal position for all planes while leaving the gunsight shifted view as it is. It's already - even if it's only a bit - in the P.11c and P-47D-10 & D-22. And I can see the cowling in FW when doing very high neg G loads thanks Head Shake. I doubt Oleg modelled it unrealistic, eg. pilot's head gets "out of the cockpit". So it is possible, even in this engine.



<hr>

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

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

</p><font color=59626B>

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 09:20 AM
JtD wrote:
- I thought everything is about drawings.
-
- (I sometimes wonder what some people use there eyes
- for.)

No drawings, prove your point with real pictures.

And so far I have not seen any drawing that shows the view from the cockpit with half the gunsight being blocked by the air intake.


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

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 12:37 PM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
- No drawings, prove your point with real pictures.

Now this really made me lol.

- And so far I have not seen any drawing that shows
- the view from the cockpit with half the gunsight
- being blocked by the air intake.

Could you please tell me why a blueprint/drawing needs to show a view from the cockpit in order to show the poor over the nose visibility of a La-5?

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 04:16 PM
So you can't prove it.

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

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 04:32 PM
JtD wrote:
- Cappadocian_317 wrote:
-- No drawings, prove your point with real pictures.
-
- Now this really made me lol.
-
-- And so far I have not seen any drawing that shows
-- the view from the cockpit with half the gunsight
-- being blocked by the air intake.
-
- Could you please tell me why a blueprint/drawing
- needs to show a view from the cockpit in order to
- show the poor over the nose visibility of a La-5?

Actually, I looked at the picture again and when you draw a line from the gunsight straight forward the air intake doesn't even block the revi in any way, it actually doesn't even come close to it.

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


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

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 04:45 PM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
- So you can't prove it.

If you mean "You don't have a picture from the La-5 pit like the guys showing several hundreds pictures of the FW 190 cockpit and thus proving several hundreds of different thruths about the FW 190's cockpit." the answer is: Right, I can't.

If you mean "You don't have the possiblity to take a ruler and some blueprints and make a valid point." the answer is: Wrong, I can.

And since the importance of a cockpit picture escapes me entirely, you probably have to live with your "everything is fine" conviction.

I, however, will live with my "It's wrong" conviction.

If this is a problem to you, please answer the question in my previous post.

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 04:48 PM
I just drew a line in MS paint from eye hight through the gun revi all the way to the left and it doesn't even remotely blocked the revi.

So yes, I can now say that your findings are total BS.

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

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 06:14 PM
Okay, you guys (Jippo started and Cappadocian tipped me over) made me angry. So I took some drawings and wasted time to show you some things concerning La-5F (not FN) over the nose view.

On the first picture you can see the vertical distance sightline -> nose top. It is slightly below 7 cm, but since I am not 100% precise I'd say: I dubio pro La-5F. So lets say it's 7 cm.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/la5fone.jpg


On the second picture I show the top spot of the nose and the pilots head position as in FB. The latter is probably not 100% correct, but it should be within ery small margins.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/la5ftwo.jpg


No by taking a ruler you can simply get the distance from eye position to top nose spot. It is about:
260 cm for normal and
245 cm for gunsight view.

Now taking sinus:
7/260 = sin (normal angle) => normal downward view over the nose is: 1.55‚?
7/245 = sin (gunsight angle) => gunsight downward view over the nose is: 1.64‚?

This is from blueprints.

The way of taking viewing angles from FB has already been discussed several times, so I'll just post the number I got when using my way:
normal angle: 3.35‚?
gunsight angle: 3.55‚?

When taking the distance eye position -> nose cover I can work out the height above the nose with the sinus again:
sin (3.35‚?) * 260 = sin (3.55‚?) * 245 = 15.2 cm -> Rounded down: 15 cm

So what have we got:
A historical drawing showing the sight line to be 7 cm above the topmost nose cover spot.
A FB 3-D model La-5F with its sight line 15 cm above the topmost nose cover spot.

What does this mean?
The nose should block the view in an La-5F much more than it does now. How much?
Since the sinus is close to linear at such small angles the distance between gunsight center and nose cover top should be only 7/15 times as big as it is is now, or roughly half.

Would this add fun? No, it wouldn't.
Would this be more realistic? I don't think so, as the natural gift of two eyes per pilot combined with full 3-D head movement will very much offset all disadvatages of the reduced viewing angle.
Would this be more correct with the 3-D model? Yes, it would.

Does this prove anything? I bet it will prove again that there is nothing that can convince some people of things they don't like to hear. They just won't listen.

(FYI: From what I shoeed so far it could also be that the cockpit is inclined by something like 2‚?, but it's not. You will find the same thing over the wings or the tail. So it can't be inclined.)

Cappadocian, you might want to look for mistakes with yourself before you declare other peoples findings to be total BS. A straight line through the sight doesn't show anything in this matter.

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 07:57 PM
JtD, from looking at your very detailed drawing I still think that your incorrect.

Right now the lower part of the revi is blocked by the air intake of the nose and from my viewpoint it look totally correct in FB.

The view over the nose is very poor in the LA5 in FB and deflection shooting is very hard, if they block it even more then it is completely useless.

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


Message Edited on 07/11/0309:10PM by Cappadocian_317

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2003, 09:30 PM
JtD wrote:
- On the first picture you can see the vertical
- distance sightline -> nose top. It is slightly below
- 7 cm, but since I am not 100% precise I'd say: I
- dubio pro La-5F. So lets say it's 7 cm.

don't forget refraction!

it might not be as strong as for the 190, but it's some important mm.


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
07-11-2003, 11:58 PM
Look at the first drawing again, the front of the nose looking towards the cockpit, the gun bulges are different, one is narrow and higher then the other one who is wider.

If you look carefully then you see that the narrow higher one sticks a little bit above the cockpit glass but the wider flat one doesn't.

Since the front hull is round and these gun bulges are right on top of the curve they can hardly be seen from inside the cockpit, you only see the narrow higher one, so I still see it as correct in the game.



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

XyZspineZyX
07-12-2003, 10:22 AM
take 7cm from the picture, add 1cm for drawing errors and 2cm for refraction
then you have 10cm, is this okey for all?

if you compare the position of the gunsight to the cockpit frame, I would say the frame is raised even more than the gunsight/instrumentpanel

the pilot in the La5 is nearly hitting the upper cockpit frame when looking through the gunsight. I think they had clipping problems between the frame and the viewport

maybe there where also clipping problems with the 190 cockpit, that's why they also raised the cockpit and moved it forward.

I hope Oleg finds a better solution for this problem in the next sim, so we get the historical view for all planes.


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
07-12-2003, 03:02 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
[snip]
-
- In my profession plans, sections and perspectives
- are my tools. I know exactly how difficult
- perspectives are and how one can even mislead people
- with perspective image. Plans and sections (and 3d
- models when one can measure them) are the truth,
- perspective is something that somebody wants you to
- see.
-
-
--jippo
-
-

The above comment is one of the most succinct and clear statements I have seen in this forum regarding the differences between perspective views, and mechanical drawings/plans. Measureable 3D is based on "parallel" projection, which is the method used in CAD.

To amplify what you said, here is an example of what universities teach computer science students about perspective views and projection:

<center>http://members.cox.net/robster2/Clip0001_.jpg (http://www.cs.hofstra.edu/courses/2002/fall/csc171A/01/handouts/Viewing/viewing_projhand2.pdf)
Viewing, Projections Handout from
Hofstra University, Department of Computer Science
"Introduction to Computer Graphics", CSC 171A
</center>

It is good to see that later posts in this dicussion have moved toward using drawings for measurements.

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

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 05:54 PM
rbstr44 wrote:
- Jippo01 wrote:
--
- [snip]
--
-- In my profession plans, sections and perspectives
-- are my tools. I know exactly how difficult
-- perspectives are and how one can even mislead people
-- with perspective image. Plans and sections (and 3d
-- models when one can measure them) are the truth,
-- perspective is something that somebody wants you to
-- see.
--
--
---jippo
--
--
-
- The above comment is one of the most succinct and
- clear statements I have seen in this forum regarding
- the differences between perspective views, and
- mechanical drawings/plans. Measureable 3D is based
- on "parallel" projection, which is the method used
- in CAD.
-
- To amplify what you said, here is an example of what
- universities teach computer science students about
- perspective views and projection:
-
- It is good to see that later posts in this dicussion
- have moved toward using drawings for measurements.
-

you can't do absolute mesurement, but relative

the same plane should always look the same if you view it under same conditions (angle, distance, viewport, ...)

also we know some things about the projection IL2 uses:
1. for all external elements the same projection is used (or planes and distances would look crazy)
2. the line of view is shown linear (or aiming would be a wired thing)

yes I know, internal IL2 might have any crazy representation of reality using nonlinear skales, but this is meaningless as the result (what is shown) has to equal reality (more exactly "how we see reality")

if it doesn't, modell or projection (or both) would be wrong not the reality


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