PDA

View Full Version : Gunsight on Ta 152 H



mynameisroland
05-30-2006, 09:44 AM
Why does the gunsight on the Ta 152 H have improved visibility compared to the sight on the Fw 190 A4 through to D9 45 ?

mynameisroland
05-30-2006, 09:44 AM
Why does the gunsight on the Ta 152 H have improved visibility compared to the sight on the Fw 190 A4 through to D9 45 ?

BBB_Hyperion
05-30-2006, 10:01 AM
Cause of the armored glass thickness it must be positioned higher. On the other hand is the refraction effect missing .) but position correct.

JG53Frankyboy
05-30-2006, 10:05 AM
because oleg had sources that it was mounted higher............

mynameisroland
05-30-2006, 10:11 AM
So the sight is mounted higher, did the armoured glass thickness differ ? I thought it stayed the same as Fw 190 A8. I also wonder why they would raise the gunsight in the Ta 152 H?

Maybe all Fw 190s actually had adjustable gunsights so that refraction of the armoured glass could be avoided. Sounds insane doesnt it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

BBB_Hyperion
05-30-2006, 10:21 AM
It does sound insane .) Cause refraction takes part for better forward view.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/images/ahd/jpg/A4refrac.jpg

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/images/light_refraction1.gif

http://www.tpub.com/neets/tm/30NVM006.GIF

Jaws2002
05-30-2006, 10:24 AM
This is my take on this matter.

Because the armor glass in Ta-152 is thinner then in the 190A8 the refraction won't cover enough of the bar so they raise the gunsight.

If you take into account the refraction you should have the same forward visibility in both of them.

Thick armor-> more refraction -> More of the view in front is lowered.
Thinner armor glass-> they had to raise the gunsight to get the same effect.

Hurri-Khan
05-30-2006, 10:29 AM
A-4 was done way before the latter ones, maybe even by different modeller. The earlier cockpits in game were never updated to mach mistakes corrected on later ones..

No conspiracies, a job that propably could be easily done by a enthustiastic modeller is too lenghty for a company that needs to make profit..

But if you think that's big error, compare axis (FB-era) and allied brewsters (PF-era):

F2A:
http://i71.imagethrust.com/i/52064/f2a.jpg
B-239:
http://i71.imagethrust.com/i/52062/b239.jpg

The rounded thingy on wing is a outside temp gauge that should be readable by pilot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
http://i71.imagethrust.com/i/52065/winggunstarboard.jpg

But that's not the worst http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Compare the "armorwall"..
http://i71.imagethrust.com/i/52066/armorwall.jpg
To actual pilot armor..
http://i71.imagethrust.com/i/52067/bwohjaamo2.jpg


>>>-H-K--->

Jaws2002
05-30-2006, 10:35 AM
But we have the same cr@p in Me 262. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif



In the first pic look how much lower is the nose seen through the armor glass them viewed through the side window. that is a dramatic improvement if you ask me.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/470px-Me262cockpit_color.jpg

Jaws2002
05-30-2006, 10:42 AM
and if we are at it.....


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/bar.jpg

Jaws2002
05-30-2006, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hurri-Khan:


No conspiracies, a job that propably could be easily done by a enthustiastic modeller is too lenghty for a company that needs to make profit..

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are verry much wrong here.
It was not changed because Oleg said will never be changed. It has nothing to do with early models or late models.
There was so much heated debate over this view.
If Oleg allowed it it would have been fixed long time ago.
This is one case of "You is wrong" that Oleg neve wanted to fix. He changed his mind about muzle flashes, about .50's, abuout mineshells. but this is a "Taboo".
During those heated debate some people went over board and plain insulted Oleg.

I think this is why we have what we have.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

mynameisroland
05-30-2006, 11:50 AM
I know that Oleg wont change the view, there are loads of reasons why but particularly that he was annoyed by the manic campaign to get it changed. So it is a matter of principle IMO that it wont be changed. I was just kind of interested in the officaila 1C reasoning behind the acceptable view from the Ta's gunsight and the Fw 190's

Look at how obvious the missing MG shells in Mg 151 loadout problem was before anything was done about it. Oleg even stated that the shell was there, it took a massive effort by at least a dozen individuals to get the problem looked in to.

Brain32
05-30-2006, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I know that Oleg wont change the view, there are loads of reasons why but particularly that he was annoyed by the manic campaign to get it changed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes but it seems that heated M2 discussions do not irritate him so much, as it has been changed regulary by popular forum opinion, even though some members called him a...I'll just say that I would be insulted. OK I don't remember the Fw190 gunsight threads but I can't even imagine how did people treated Oleg if he decided to leave such historical inaccuracy in the game...

Hurri-Khan
05-30-2006, 12:06 PM
Even 190A being my weapon of choise, I grew bored following the gunsight debate so I'm probaply wrong.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


But here's my guess:
All the FW190 series pits are based on single "base" cockpit 3d model. Most 190's came with original FB and the rest are still based on same model. Can't remember if they were identical to 190's in IL-2..

TA-152H however came with AEP and modeller had more polygons in use and decided to rework few thingies.. While reworking (and re-texturing) model he made new gunsight.
Same goes with the brewster. Not enough polys on B-239 for modelling the complex canopy sides or what's behind seat. In PF while reworking the same pit model with extra polys (and texture amount) modeller made new canopy framing and corrected pilot view position (required by that tube-sight).

Just compare the anton and TA-152 models..
Anyways just my guess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


&gt;&gt;&gt;-H-K---&gt;

Jaws2002
05-30-2006, 12:36 PM
Here i come saying you are wrong again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Sorry.

If you look at FW-190 A8 Mistel you'll see the cockpit was changed and retextured.This one came in the same time with Ta152 i think.
They could have done it back then if they wanted to. Also F-8 came after the A models and it was slightly different. No fix again.

Here is a little video of FW-190 A4 forward view. Looks nothing like our FW.

Small FW-190 Video (http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=check_download&ufid=7CEB165F66A9A59E&key=085fc563f52f4f56e1d73325662d1f480f8091c0)

stathem
05-30-2006, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
But we have the same cr@p in Me 262. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif



In the first pic look how much lower is the nose seen through the armor glass them viewed through the side window. that is a dramatic improvement if you ask me.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/470px-Me262cockpit_color.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, hang on a mo. If the light from the nose is refracted and so the nose appears lower, then so does every other photon that comes through the arm. glass will refracted by the same amount, no?

So anything that would be obscured by the nose if there were no thick glass there would still be obscured; because it's all relative. The nose looks lower but so does everything else.

If refraction was applied in game a bandit crossing from the side glass to the armour glass would be seen to 'jump' lower. That would make high defelction shots way harder.

So as such, isn't the whole refraction whine nonsense?

BBB_Hyperion
05-30-2006, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
So as such, isn't the whole refraction whine nonsense? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For a Simulation no , for an arcade game yes.

Megile_
05-30-2006, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:

So as such, isn't the whole refraction whine nonsense? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have a winnnerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

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

you just made this thread a 10 pager http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Jaws2002
05-30-2006, 12:50 PM
You ar right but is not nonsense. This is how it was.

The refraction hides the "Bar". lowers everything in the gunsight.
the problem we have is that bar (that should be hidden because of refraction) is covering half the gunsight.
If the plane in front was above the cowling will still be above the cowling if seen through the armor glass, but you should have a clear gunsight.

In those long treads back then there were some great images of the D-11 from Seattle during restoration. You could clearly see the difference after the glass was installed. They installed thinner armor glass and you can still see a dramatic improvement.

tigertalon
05-30-2006, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Err, hang on a mo. If the light from the nose is refracted and so the nose appears lower, then so does every other photon that comes through the arm. glass will refracted by the same amount, no?

So anything that would be obscured by the nose if there were no thick glass there would still be obscured; because it's all relative. The nose looks lower but so does everything else.

If refraction was applied in game a bandit crossing from the side glass to the armour glass would be seen to 'jump' lower. That would make high defelction shots way harder.

So as such, isn't the whole refraction whine nonsense? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing personal but you are completely wrong here, from pure physical point of view.

The armour glass will shift light paralely for a few centimeters, not deflect it by any angle. As a consequence, all objects you look at through a armoured glass will appear few centimeters lower than they actualy are. So, when looking at a nearby (a few centimeters away) "bar", it will mean something completely different than looking at a P51 200 meters away: you wont even notice difference here.

From the seat you are sitting on this very moment take a look through the window, and look at a distant object. Now rise yourself for a few centimeters...

Again, no offence ment.

Hurri-Khan
05-30-2006, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
Here i come saying you are wrong again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Sorry.

If you look at FW-190 A8 Mistel you'll see the cockpit was changed and retextured.This one came in the same time with Ta152 i think.
They could have done it back then if they wanted to. Also F-8 came after the A models and it was slightly different. No fix again.

Here is a little video of FW-190 A4 forward view. Looks nothing like our FW.

Small FW-190 Video (http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=check_download&ufid=7CEB165F66A9A59E&key=085fc563f52f4f56e1d73325662d1f480f8091c0) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Continuing my personal conspiracy theory.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Had they only changed gunsight to mistel and F-8, there would have been hell to pay. Everyone would have flown only them or demanded rest FWs to be changed. Had they changed them all in AEP, the manufacturing cost per game would have doubled since it would have been 2CD version http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But like it was said..

1.It will never be changed.
2.It looks nothing like FW.


&gt;&gt;&gt;-H-K---&gt;

DuxCorvan
05-30-2006, 02:15 PM
It was demonstrated that Ta 152H pilots had much thicker hemorroids due to long hours climbing to operative altitude.

Besides, revamped cockpits for all aircraft were in the planned 3rd CD of PF... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

stathem
05-30-2006, 02:48 PM
Thanks for the responses, chaps. I'll try to answer and ask some more questions tomorrow, but can you answer me 2 quick ones?

Was the bar outside or inside of the amr. glass?

Was teh Amr. glass in a FW a flat plate or triangular in section?

Thanks.

Jaws2002
05-30-2006, 03:03 PM
The bar is in front of the armor glass (outside). is actially the lower outside frame of the glass.

the armor glass was flat 60mm plate.

Jaws2002
05-30-2006, 03:09 PM
Check the picks in this post from long ago and you'll understand.

Note. You'll see they didn't even used the right thickness of the glass( is 38 mm instead 50-60 mm), and it still does a great job of hiding the bar.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m.../r/15510033#15510033 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/15510033/r/15510033#15510033)

Kocur_
05-30-2006, 04:28 PM
The glass was 50mm thick all the way from Fw-190A to Ta-152 AFAIK. There was no need or reason to change anything.

Fw-190 is hurt badly by bogus modelling of cocpit view and so are P-47 Razorbacks and P-51B/C (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5351020214). Seems that those planes, making international group of the perfect boom'n'zoomers have commonly porked sightig view, which affects their efectiveness. Or did - before we learnt to shoot and hit targets we cant see... In that light IMHO P-51B/C with their weak armament are hurt the most.

Brain32
05-30-2006, 04:54 PM
Yes the P47 razorback's cockpit is indeed modelled wrongly, but as DaimonSyrius pointed out in that same thread, the functionality of it's cockpit is not impaired like in the case of FW190.
And yes we had learned to shoot like that, but there are two things, first you can't say we wouldn't shoot better and even more important better FW190 view is historically correct.
You have a point about the Mustangs though, in that case functionality is indeed impaired, overall I'm not to happy with the Mustang treatment in this game but that's already OT...

Kocur_
05-30-2006, 11:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And yes we had learned to shoot like that, but there are two things, first you can't say we wouldn't shoot better and even more important better FW190 view is historically correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh naturally! Im all for correcting it. I wrote about 'blind shooting' before anyone came with something like: "dont whine - you fly it anyway, so it must be ok". What we were forced to adopt to is nothing elese then vast modelling mistake. This game surely is not a sim for Fw-190 in terms of pilot's view - which goes to P-47 Razorbacks and P-51B/C too.

Ratsack
05-31-2006, 12:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Yes the P47 razorback's cockpit is indeed modelled wrongly, but as DaimonSyrius pointed out in that same thread, the functionality of it's cockpit is not impaired like in the case of FW190.
. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have to disagree here. The modelling of the razorback P-47s obscures the gunsight view as badly or worse than the Fw190's. The bubble tops are lovely shooting platforms but the greenhouse Thunderbolts really suck in this respect.

Regarding the greenhouse Mustangs mentioned above by somebody, I hadn't noticed any difficulty with these...maybe I'm blind and missing something?

cheers,
Ratsack

Kocur_
05-31-2006, 03:56 AM
P-51B/C problem is not gunsight being obscured, but it being mounted FAR too low. Please follow the link in my previous post and check out pitures of real greenhouse Mustangs.

Ratsack
05-31-2006, 04:16 AM
Yep, roger that. I see what you mean. Good post, too, Kocur.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kocur_
05-31-2006, 04:37 AM
Thanks. Forwarded to you-know-where too btw. But it turned out, that everything was just fine, bacuse lots of RL pilots, fourty of them I guess, said current view modelling was just fine!
B(e)S(ure) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Jaws2002
05-31-2006, 10:03 AM
FW-190A4 from that russian video (even the revi model is wrong in A4):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/A4.jpg

Brain32
05-31-2006, 10:25 AM
Now that's what I could call a view...

Kocur_
05-31-2006, 01:31 PM
What possibly more than such a pic it could take to convince anyone about current modelling being totally wrong...

Brain32
05-31-2006, 04:46 PM
Yes I wander that too. An undenyable evidence...

Hurri-Khan
06-01-2006, 08:18 AM
The hard fact just is that making games is a business and gaming industry has very much competition. I've never been into it myself, but just think of it. In a recent interview one game reviewer said that they review some four-digit number of games per year! Let's say 3 releases per day (it think it includes console and mobile games) compare this to let's say number of movies, carmodels or even swimsuits released per year.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
A company needs to pay it's employees to keep the talented crew working for it.

The first flight sim in the series, IL-2 Sturmovik, was released in November of 2001 and single-handedly revolutionized the genre. It was their 1st flight sim and still atleast one of the best, if not the best around! Rewoking big parts of it in 2006 would be a suicide..

Compare let's say windows 95 to 98 or millenium. Even the biggest can't afford to release that as free or low-price add-on/fix. If operating system ain't enough, compare the FS-series. Gates could have probaply even paid it from his own purse and still not feel a sting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif How could small 1C be able to do this..

Just my observation.


&gt;&gt;&gt;-H-K---&gt;

mynameisroland
06-01-2006, 08:45 AM
I understand your point Hurri, however I am very concerned that, as Oleg has already hinted at, the Fw 190 in BoB will use the same reference material and therefore the same inaccuracies ...

Jaws2002
06-01-2006, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I understand your point Hurri, however I am very concerned that, as Oleg has already hinted at, the Fw 190 in BoB will use the same reference material and therefore the same inaccuracies ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Exactly. I 'm ok with PF. I know is late, but it better be fixed for the BOB.

Ah BTW. We are getting a new Ta-152c in the 1946 addon. Paid addon. Why should they add the same stupid mistakes in something we will have to pay AS A NEW PRODUCT?

You see Hurri your argument about bussines is not making sense here. New product -&gt; new income....We should get fixed views.

Brain32
06-01-2006, 10:52 AM
Exactly, they already showed us they can make it better, now why wouldn't they make Ta152 gunsight for all FW's, I know that's still not that, but it's better than this, what isn't lol

Hurri-Khan
06-01-2006, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
We are getting a new Ta-152c in the 1946 addon. Paid addon. Why should they add the same stupid mistakes in something we will have to pay AS A NEW PRODUCT?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's being done by another company i.e RRG.
http://www.rrgstudios.com/EN_01_02_AboutCompany.shtml

"Why should they add the same stupid mistakes.." remember PF ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

What comes to BoB I wouldn't count Oleg (or his modellers actually) out. The increased poly & texture sizes, combined with usage of original blueprints might just hit the spot.. Incase the 190 even is there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


&gt;&gt;&gt;-H-K---&gt;

luftluuver
06-01-2006, 12:38 PM
Considering that 1C/MG is a stickler for accurate modelling, it would be a real shame if the pilot's gunsight view was not just as accurately modelled (that is for all a/c, not just the 190).

Hurri-Khan
06-01-2006, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Exactly, they already showed us they can make it better, now why wouldn't they make Ta152 gunsight for all FW's, I know that's still not that, but it's better than this, what isn't lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would require reworking of every single cockpit model and texture separately.
Textures and pits are around 20MB in size (just basic model). Not to mention the code that is needed to actually tie them into game.

so A-4, A-5, A-5ATA.something, A-6, A-8, A-9, F-8, Mistel, D-9, D-9Late. That's 200MB just the basic 3D + textures. But the main reason must be the amount of time it takes to make them work in-game.

Then if FW's would be changed, the whine would move on to P-47's, Brewsters, Tempest, P-51 etc... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

&gt;&gt;&gt;-H-K---&gt;

carguy_
06-01-2006, 02:19 PM
This thread is a live example that zombies exist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif