PDA

View Full Version : christmas try (fw related,pics inside)



NN_EnigmuS
12-20-2004, 10:24 AM
hehe i give it a try for christmas,showing the german propaganda about revi view as they clearly remade those fw on the pics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

i'm kiddind relax anyway just see pictures by yourself

http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103566327.jpg

http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103566360.jpg

http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103566377.jpg

http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103566665.jpg

NN_EnigmuS
12-20-2004, 10:43 AM
don't want to be too frantic on this one but

http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103567831.jpg

robban75
12-20-2004, 10:48 AM
Great pics Enigmus, thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

3.JG51_BigBear
12-20-2004, 11:10 AM
Nice pics.

BBB_Hyperion
12-20-2004, 11:33 AM
Great pics .)

NN_EnigmuS
12-20-2004, 05:01 PM
bump

http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103590511.jpg

Gryphonne
12-20-2004, 05:42 PM
Great pics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

*cough* FW view *cough*

Willey
12-20-2004, 07:31 PM
The pics rock http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/3.gif

2-4 have one in common: All have "raised" Revi http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

NN_EnigmuS
12-21-2004, 06:34 AM
hehe in the pics there are both ReviC/12D used since fwA2 to fwA6 for sure and revi16b as we have in game used since fwA7 and later and wasn't that used as in the 190a8 pics i show it is also a revic/12d lol

see this for revi for 16b it is said only for fwa7 and for reviC/12d for a2 to a8 lol
http://www.sam.hi-ho.ne.jp/ki-44/english/data/sight-eg.htm

anyway no bar at all with both revi,

please oleg if you see this or crazyivan or someone that can tell oleg to see this don't said anymore it's accurate the way it is in the game

if you cannot changed it or don't want tell us but don't said we are in the wrong way of thinking,it's surely one of the major bug in a cokpit in this game but never treated as it by many people

to me and the pics prooved it the bar didn't exist that's a point since the beginning,

the second one is that(with adjusted seat position in new plane like corsair)we must have at least one seat position more in Fw(i m not talking about opening the canopy)as we can see on many pics 2 way of flying for pilots one as in game and the other one upper,

the third point is(and i think will never corrected as no time for it i think)that the revi 16b isn't the correct revi for a4/5/6,it must be reviC/12D the same as in 109E,F,G lol

harryklein66
12-21-2004, 08:21 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/harryklein/190_2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/harryklein/190_1.jpg
maybe the revi have 2 position, a low for flying and a high for combat ?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NN_EnigmuS
12-21-2004, 08:31 AM
hehe nope one from a museum reconstitued machine one from an historical photo taken during the war that's the difference

if you see a museum machine painted a way and a photo of ww2 a different way(position of insignia etc..)what's the one you will trust?

harryklein66
12-21-2004, 08:47 AM
je veux bien, mais il faudrai plutot avoir des
photos de l'interieur, pour pouvoir comparé, parceque l vu de l'exterieur ça veux rien dire,
avec les angles de vue les perspetives peuvent etres trompeuse, non?
parcontre c'est sur que pouvoir réglé la vue en
hauteur dans le jeux ce serai pas du luxe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BBB_Hyperion
12-21-2004, 10:01 AM
Have some older pics too .) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fwview.jpg
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fwview2.jpg

Yes the revi is mounted to low and its the wrong revi that doesnt matter at all for the BAR.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fwview3.jpg
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fwview4.jpg

NN_EnigmuS
12-21-2004, 10:06 AM
one more a d9 with a zoom view some after will be about head position

http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103651960.jpg

http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103651978.jpg

LeadSpitter_
12-21-2004, 10:12 AM
Im with yas on this one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But wont change because it covers up clipping into the engine with the fish eye view thats why its like that.

Look at the difference between uncentered site and centered site. Regaurdless both are from a tail dragger on the ground perpective. I would love to see the 190a models redone especially the rotating fan, wheels and tail segment wierd match up.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/acespace/190cockpit1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/acespace/fw190a8.jpg

dont forget the a9 f8 doras ta152 had a bigger bar then the a8 which had a bar but below the a8 had non. Different thickness of the armored glass

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/acespace/190pit.jpg

NN_EnigmuS
12-21-2004, 10:23 AM
i ve show the non centered view of d9 for showing how high is the revi even for a revi16b http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

don't think so about difference between a8 and a9/d9 as you can see on the pic posted in my second post http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103567831.jpg
the plane is a A8 and no bar at all so to me the only plane that can had a bar are the sturmbock and plane with added armored glasses(a little bit like the 109F4 in game)

and with regard to the pic in my first post with a guy regarding throught the revi http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103566665.jpg
,it seems that the front glass is more armored than default one that's surely why he put his revi higher because of the bar effect

LeadSpitter_
12-21-2004, 10:37 AM
awhile back oleg posted a photo of a 190 pit which had a bigger bar then the photos we showed, but it was obviously a forward shot resting on all 3 wheels becuase you saw the nose raised.

Im sure you all seen the list of 190 varients and theres so many so its possible everyone is correct.

I also have a video of the 190a8 cockpit i cant find the link but the filename is JG4-Film-FW190.AVI if anyone would like to host it ill send it to them let me know

crazyivan1970
12-21-2004, 10:50 AM
Oh boy....

LeadSpitter_
12-21-2004, 10:53 AM
Dont worry ivan we know its staying as is like oleg said before. We cant talk about planes anymore here?

NN_EnigmuS
12-21-2004, 11:12 AM
yup ivan hehe

but what bother me is that oleg said it will never be changed as IT IS 100% CORRECT IN GAME will enjoy him to said guys we know it's not accurate at all in many point but we cannot changed it so take it as it is

but when i hear from oleg that if fw
will be in BOB it will be modeled the same as the current one(talking about forward view and revi)it makes me quite angry

harryklein66
12-21-2004, 12:37 PM
nice pit pics it's easy to compare now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xnomad
12-21-2004, 03:43 PM
n/t

crazyivan1970
12-21-2004, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Dont worry ivan we know its staying as is like oleg said before. We cant talk about planes anymore here? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why are you so tense LS, you gonna report me to Oleg again? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Willey
12-21-2004, 04:07 PM
http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Flugzeuge/Me109/JG4-Film-109.AVI
http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Flugzeuge/FW190/JG4-Film-FW190.AVI

Willey
12-21-2004, 04:08 PM
Maybe I should say IBTL before it's 2 l8 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LeadSpitter_
12-21-2004, 04:13 PM
why did oleg warn you for harassing one of his most dedicated posters and fans of the game crazyivan http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Or do you read and reply to his personal emails. Response was Ivan is right be sure and got responded to immediatly as soon as I posted it.

Why do you bring that information here Ivan its out of hand and should be a PT , once more and your banned!!! Im tired of your backstabbing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thx for posting the links willey btw.

crazyivan1970
12-21-2004, 05:03 PM
mommy LS said B-word...

Oleg_Maddox
12-21-2004, 11:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
yup ivan hehe

but what bother me is that oleg said it will never be changed as IT IS 100% CORRECT IN GAME will enjoy him to said guys we know it's not accurate at all in many point but we cannot changed it so take it as it is

but when i hear from oleg that if fw
will be in BOB it will be modeled the same as the current one(talking about forward view and revi)it makes me quite angry <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Om all these pictures you posted i see only confirmation about correct modeling. If you don't see and can't evalutae the angles under which was taken the photos, I'm sorry...

crazyivan1970
12-21-2004, 11:32 PM
Oleg, i don`t know about you.. but i`m running for cover http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

harryklein66
12-22-2004, 12:53 AM
and for the different type of revi? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Hetzer_II
12-22-2004, 01:10 AM
@Oleg_Maddox

Oh man, there are only 2 possibilities for your words:

I) Your an old man needing new googles... ;-)
II) You see different pictures than me

If i have more money i would invite you to the next museum so that you can sit yourself in an Fw (Hannover for example)... But maybe the pilot view is moddeld for your body heigt so that you will still say that everything is fine with the view.....

Greets

IVJG51_Swine
12-22-2004, 02:05 AM
Finally, important stuffhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I actually took this one..
http://images.snapfish.com/3426938323232%7Ffp7%3Enu%3D3239%3E5%3C9%3E346%3EWS NRCG%3D32327%3B42%3A8385nu0mrj
http://images.snapfish.com/3426938323232%7Ffp7%3Enu%3D3239%3E5%3C9%3E346%3EWS NRCG%3D32327%3B42%3A65%3A5nu0mrj

Other then this issue this sim is OUTSTANDING!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


NOSE DOWN ATTITUDE IN FLIGHThttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://images.snapfish.com/3426938323232%7Ffp63%3Dot%3E232%3A%3D6%3B%3A%3D437 %3DXROQDF%3E23236%3C339%3B7%3C6ot1lsi

EFG_Zeb
12-22-2004, 02:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
@Oleg_Maddox

Oh man, there are only 2 possibilities for your words:

I) Your an old man needing new googles... ;-)
II) You see different pictures than me

If i have more money i would invite you to the next museum so that you can sit yourself in an Fw (Hannover for example)... But maybe the pilot view is moddeld for your body heigt so that you will still say that everything is fine with the view.....

Greets <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This comment is really not necessary... It is not the way things should be said. You should respect the man as he would respect you.

I am a big Fw 190 fan, and it is my favourite aircraft in the game. I have flown these series since the original Il2 demo. I have never posted about the 190' view until today.
This is what I have to say about it, for what it's worth:

I think the view we have is definetely not the view Fw 190 pilots had in RL. I also believe Oled when he says the cockpit is correctly moddeled, as per blueprint dimensions.
The problem is elswhere. I believe it comes from thick armoured glass refraction which is not moddeled in game (if it was, the "bar" would disappear) and also from the fisheye view we have. So Oleg is correct when he says the cockpit is accurately moddeled, and we are correct when we say the obstruction should not be visible...
I also can understand that it cannot be changed as glass reflection moddeling would require huge amount of code to be re-written...
So we must agree to disagree.
I've learnt to live with it. I just hope that in future sims, these kind of things will be taken into account from the start.

This is my opinion and to me, the subject is closed.

Respectfully yours,

IVJG51_Swine
12-22-2004, 03:12 AM
This is where I think we get all mixed up and it's been this way from the beginning..
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I don't think the cockpit frame is modeled that incorrectly, I just think they should raise the gunsight a little, problem solved...</span>

NN_EnigmuS
12-22-2004, 03:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
yup ivan hehe

but what bother me is that oleg said it will never be changed as IT IS 100% CORRECT IN GAME will enjoy him to said guys we know it's not accurate at all in many point but we cannot changed it so take it as it is

but when i hear from oleg that if fw
will be in BOB it will be modeled the same as the current one(talking about forward view and revi)it makes me quite angry <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Om all these pictures you posted i see only confirmation about correct modeling. If you don't see and can't evalutae the angles under which was taken the photos, I'm sorry... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so one step by step ok

what about reviC/12D?is this correctly modeled in game?if yes cause the photo prooved it's only 16b then

what about the bar?
http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103567831.jpg
as perhaps bad perspective you know but to me the bar(**** a reviC/12d lol)is thiner than in game and with good perspective it gives that pic obviously where the bar didn't affect at all the aiminghttp://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fwview2.jpg

and finally about head position and view i m sure you can see the noise a bit when on ground and also the place where the revi take place

http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103715396.jpg

http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103715059.jpg

http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103715115.jpg

NN_EnigmuS
12-22-2004, 03:58 AM
the only pics that said you are right is obviously this one lol a fw190 with added front glassed armor like a sturmbock one or a guy wanted more armor on his plane

and because of the problem the bar get with this added glassed armor he just make his revi higher for not seeing it so if he corrected his view for not being obstructed by bar there is obviously no bar on normal front glass as all pilot we'll made the same for not seeing it if it was a problem like in game

http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103566665.jpg

Oleg_Maddox
12-22-2004, 04:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
@Oleg_Maddox

Oh man, there are only 2 possibilities for your words:

I) Your an old man needing new googles... ;-)
II) You see different pictures than me

If i have more money i would invite you to the next museum so that you can sit yourself in an Fw (Hannover for example)... But maybe the pilot view is moddeld for your body heigt so that you will still say that everything is fine with the view.....

Greets <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was sitting in two of them. As well as I have manufacture blueprints of 10 kg weight. As well as I have speciall trainig film for FW190 pilot that show the problem of gunsight view and how to make shots in this case...
Thats all.

JG53Frankyboy
12-22-2004, 04:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
................... I have speciall trainig film for FW190 pilot that show the problem of gunsight view and how to make shots in this case...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i would need this too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NN_EnigmuS
12-22-2004, 04:52 AM
can we see those film,please?

what kind of model it is?etc...

please please http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

IVJG51_Swine
12-22-2004, 05:05 AM
Wow, that film would prove a lot... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Is it classified or somethinghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG53Frankyboy
12-22-2004, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IVJG51_Swine:
Wow, that film would prove a lot... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Is it classified or somethinghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i dont need it as a proof, i just hit nothing in a Fw190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

nsu
12-22-2004, 05:44 AM
http://home.arcor.de/nsu-binder/nsu-binder/homepage/bilder/fw190a8/4.JPG

http://home.arcor.de/nsu-binder/nsu-binder/homepage/bilder/fw190a8/1.JPG

http://home.arcor.de/nsu-binder/nsu-binder/homepage/bilder/fw190a8/3.JPG

Gruß NSU http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

BBB_Hyperion
12-22-2004, 07:05 AM
NSU with or without parachute ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NN_EnigmuS
12-22-2004, 07:22 AM
it's the good view on the floor lol but with the same low revi shown before so...

BBB_Hyperion
12-22-2004, 07:54 AM
As i posted earlier the bar is there in full beauty when you remove the metal cover over instrument panel (if it is indeed same size as in il2 i dont know looks smaller but the measures for it in the 3d engine are not available).

For more detailed analysis we need this cover in different planes and check if its really bend up in the middle or could be build in higher or lower this would draw to the conclusion that the sight can be indeed different . For the view construction i think it would be better to hide this bar behind the cover if not entirely at least partly and that is what we can see on some pictures here. As for the distortion that comes from the angle of the armored glass and the size of it . Its called Refraction, Reflection is another effect that might be a problem on some lucky photos that show almost double size thickness of strives cause parts of the frame refelected on the glass.

Zen--
12-22-2004, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

I was sitting in two of them. As well as I have manufacture blueprints of 10 kg weight. As well as I have speciall trainig film for FW190 pilot that show the problem of gunsight view and how to make shots in this case...
Thats all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg, while I personally don't think the current view is accurate, from your statement here I can see why you feel the view is correct because you have several different sources to support it. My question then is related to Eric Brown's inspection of the aircraft and how he felt the 190a had a better forward view than the Spitfire. The spit's view in game is not so great either, but imho it's just a tad easier to shoot from than the 190 is, which would give the spit the better view (even if only by a little bit). I don't have the exact quote handy but my impression was that Mr. Brown felt the 190 was superior.

If you have time, what are your thoughts about the relationship between the in-game spit view and the in-game 190? Do you think they match up well? Obviously you must think so or they would be different but I am curious if you have any comments on the two.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

<S!>

Willey
12-22-2004, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Om all these pictures you posted i see only confirmation about correct modeling. If you don't see and can't evalutae the angles under which was taken the photos, I'm sorry... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about this? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/190-16.jpg

Also, I'd like to point out that all gunsites seem to be modelled in miniature size in FB. Check the Videos. In the 109, the top of the Revi is almost as high as the top frame of the windshield armor. In P-51 pics, the gunsites are monsters in size.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/aviation/Buildings/p51_2.jpg

OK, it's low angle, but see how wide it is.

PriK
12-22-2004, 11:55 AM
The forward view is correct imho and I also don't believe that it flew "nose down" because of the guns.

What isn't modelled is a pilot's neck which could crane up or down, left or right, in and out as necessary but we can't have that because you might notice the gunsight floating and that would be terrible!

Fehler
12-22-2004, 01:57 PM
Ooooo!

Oleg, is there any way you can make a copy of the 190 pilot training film? I know about 9875903 people that would LOVE to see it!

C'mon, please - please for a Christmas present?

Zen--
12-22-2004, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PriK:
...and I also don't believe that it flew "nose down" because of the guns.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The view is certainly open for discussion, but there are numerous real life sources that say the 190 did fly nose down. Some of the photos posted here show this as well.

Ugly_Kid
12-22-2004, 02:30 PM
I did a nice walk in imperial war museum in London...no I did not sit in any of them but I had a nice walk...here some pictures (if you want to use them save quickly my webspace is playing funny games with me):

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/HPIM0746.JPG
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/HPIM0746a.JPG
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/HPIM0747.JPG
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/HPIM0749.JPG
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/HPIM0749a.JPG

Just one walk and I felt like wow...Dear Oleg you're losing serious piece of credebility here, maybe there's not such a big money behind this as behind let's say 0.5 cal but I can still recognize horsesh!t where I see one, just IMO I saw lots of things, tons of it but I did not see a "bar" blocking FW gunsight. Merry X-Mas

crazyivan1970
12-22-2004, 02:39 PM
Kid, please downsize those images.... no offence , but dang .. they are huge!


Here, i went to my local museum, and took this two shots:

http://tinypic.com/yly4x

So i was making great shots... and this thing came...and i had to run away http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://tinypic.com/ylyeh

Marry Xmas everyone http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Zen--
12-22-2004, 02:42 PM
œо¸ ³л?з? œо¸ ³л?з?!!!! ¯ я²ляюсь Ñлµ¿Ñ"м, ºÑ"о - Ñ"о ¿олуÑ"?µÑ" Ñ"о Ñ"у´о²¸Ñ"µ ¸з Ñ"орум?!!!!

Ugly_Kid
12-22-2004, 02:55 PM
Just evacuate the pictures quickly, you've got about 30 min. after that I have to upload them again...

NN_EnigmuS
12-22-2004, 03:05 PM
**** what an ugly cat ivan http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

ugly_kid nice pics seems exactly the same bar as in picture in my second post this **** perspective http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif will make us mad hehe

i m waiting for this film and seeing what model of fw it is lol please oleg it's christmas time

Zen--
12-22-2004, 03:06 PM
Kid, I resized and reposted your pics...let me know if you want me to take them down and I will, but if not here they are:

http://209.163.147.67/zen/files/zen/fw/HPIM0746.jpg

http://209.163.147.67/zen/files/zen/fw/HPIM0746a.jpg

http://209.163.147.67/zen/files/zen/fw/HPIM0747.jpg

http://209.163.147.67/zen/files/zen/fw/HPIM0749.jpg

http://209.163.147.67/zen/files/zen/fw/HPIM0749a.jpg

Popey109
12-22-2004, 03:22 PM
Well! I have no tech expertise but I can€t imagine why when building one of the most advanced fighter aircraft of the time you€d limit the pilots view the way it is in FB. From early war to late you can see how all country worked for advantage in view. Why would any WW2 pilot not complain about this view? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif PS look at the hight of head rest! this pilot did not see the bar, he saw over the bar I think! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Copperhead310th
12-22-2004, 03:24 PM
Good God. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif not this again. haven't you guys beaten this horse to death yet? i mean it's been dragging out for over 2 YEARS!!! think about that......2 years. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif and each time you guys get on the subject you only wind up proving 1 thing each and every time. and that is that Oleg is CORRECT. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif So why not just give up already? jeez! you guys are all pi$$ing and moaning about the 190 forward view and the USAAF/UNS-USMC pilots just had every major aircaft after 1944 snatched right out from under. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif I think it's time you boys give this one a serous rest. Oleg is right. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif and you all are wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif it's that simple and each photo that you post only serves to back up Olegs position.

Thank you....Drive thru. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

IVJG51_Swine
12-22-2004, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PriK:
The forward view is correct imho and I also don't believe that it flew "nose down" because of the guns.

What _isn't_ modelled is a pilot's neck which could crane up or down, left or right, in and out as necessary but we can't have that because you might notice the gunsight floating and that would be terrible! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Prik, there is actually a brief from an Allied Test Pilot Captain Brown who flew the 190. In his report he indicated that the aircraft flew in a nose down position thus increasing your overall forward visibility. It's been up all over the place and I do have it in a book just not scanned right now.
I can't wait until I can fly a 190 with 6DF VECTOR BABY!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IVJG51_Swine
12-22-2004, 03:29 PM
Copperhead take your medication please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I remember back when everyone was saying you can't fix the muzzleflashes.....Remember that?

Also, new information and photos come out all of the time. I don't see anything wrong with posting new info...I have already seen some new pics in this thread....Thanks for posting them guys..~S~

NorrisMcWhirter
12-22-2004, 03:30 PM
Hi,

Ah, Copper's playground logic: "If I can't have, you can't have, either." - worthy of a 6 year old.

Nice pics chaps and I concur with the comment about it being odd disadvantaging the pilot in such a manner; something is plainly amiss.

It'd be interesting to see this training film, I must admit. In fact, it may just put the whole thing to bed completely which would be a weight off your mind, Oleg, not to mention UBI's forum bandwidth - so, how about it ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Merry Xmas all.
Norris

faustnik
12-22-2004, 03:33 PM
For those that don't like the 190 view, fly the 190 more, then the "lousy view" just becomes "the view". It does not bother me in the slightest anymore.

Please keep posting pics though, love to see any 190 shots! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Copperhead310th
12-22-2004, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

Ah, Copper's playground logic: "If I can't have, you can't have, either." - worthy of a 6 year old.

Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go play in traffic norris and get off my back already. and stop with ther personal attcks already. thier getting really old.

Mjollnir111675
12-22-2004, 03:45 PM
So......
When will we be able to choose our pilots height,weight? That way we can all git into a feirce discussion on how if one picks an ethiopian pilot who weighs 79 lbs. he has an un-fair weight/ratio fer the plane!! And can we have height modeled that way I can have an 800 lb. 2'4" pilot(konami blades of steel days http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif ) who cant see cr@p!! And that way y'all can complain how someone on-line used a 7'3" man that gave the player an unfair advantage when it comes to looking round with an open cockpit with 6 DOF!!
I wanna to be the foist poisen to be declared the official "pilot editor" whiner!!!!

@ Faustnik: Man I hope you are catch 'n' release!! That tail marking looks to be a lil dangerous to the local large mouth bass population!! Being as I personally am a smallmouth bass man it has me worried that after you annihilate the l.Bass you will come fer me smallies!! Oh yeah I want that skin Man!!


http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/873935/aVENGE.jpg
"So..if we DO git torp planes who is gonna model the torps themselves? Or the fleet?"

BBB_Hyperion
12-22-2004, 03:49 PM
Great Pics Ugly didnt know it was in such good condition .

faustnik
12-22-2004, 03:52 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:

@ Faustnik: Man I hope you are catch 'n' release!! That tail marking looks to be a lil dangerous to the local large mouth bass population!! Being as I personally am a smallmouth bass man it has me worried that after you annihilate the l.Bass you will come fer me smallies!! Oh yeah I want that skin Man!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Catch & release only! The new skin was made for me by "FlyFish" of the CWOS forums. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just got back from a great trip on Clear Lake. Stuck 45 bass in 3 hours ripping on Monday evening, it was great! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Smallies are serious fish, love 'em!

Mjollnir111675
12-22-2004, 03:56 PM
Yep I love tha bronzebacks!!

what were their average size? bout what...3.5 lbs on the average?? 45 is ALOT of bass!! How many ppll were with ya? No linit fishin'?


Could we possibly see an ami plane with a smallie on it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BTW: Boat,bank or wade?

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/873935/aVENGE.jpg
"So if we Do git torp planes who is gonna model the torps themselves?Or the fleet?"

NorrisMcWhirter
12-22-2004, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

Ah, Copper's playground logic: "If I can't have, you can't have, either." - worthy of a 6 year old.

Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go play in traffic norris and get off my back already. and stop with ther personal attcks already. thier getting really old. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oooOOOOoooo handbags to the ready! Perhaps if you hadn't posted the same, tired old cobblers in here then there wouldn't be need for such a retort..

I also hate to be pedantic this close to Christmas, old bean, but it's 'they are' or 'they're' as opposed to 'thier'. But you knew that already because you're a 'writter'(!)

Cheers.
Norris

PS: Good point about pilot height - how tall is Oleg and should he have had a booster cushion when sitting in the 190 to see over the 'dash'? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
12-22-2004, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:
Yep I love tha bronzebacks!!

what were their average size? bout what...3.5 lbs on the average?? 45 is ALOT of bass!! How many ppll were with ya? No linit fishin'?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll send you a PM before the highjack accusations start. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Mjollnir111675
12-22-2004, 04:49 PM
@ Faust: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif I feel ya man!! No probs with that!!

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/873935/aVENGE.jpg
"So..IF we DO git the torp planes who is gonna model the torps themselves?Or the fleet?"

PriK
12-22-2004, 07:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IVJG51_Swine:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PriK:
The forward view is correct imho and I also don't believe that it flew "nose down" because of the guns.

What _isn't_ modelled is a pilot's neck which could crane up or down, left or right, in and out as necessary but we can't have that because you might notice the gunsight floating and that would be terrible! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Prik, there is actually a brief from an Allied Test Pilot Captain Brown who flew the 190. In his report he indicated that the aircraft flew in a nose down position thus increasing your overall forward visibility. It's been up all over the place and I do have it in a book just not scanned right now.
I can't wait until I can fly a 190 with 6DF VECTOR BABY!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read this and other accounts that refute his. I've also waded through all of the presented info before back when all of this came to light in the huge thread from last year.

I don't pretend to be an expert but I haven't seen any evidence presented yet that proves Oleg wrong and on the contrary only manages to prove his position further.

I beleive the FW190 had a great cockpit view but the problem lays in the positioning of the pilot while aiming through the gunsight.

In normal flight his head was higher and he could see much of the cowling and much more of the sky than we see now. However, when it came time to aim through the sight he would have had to crouch a bit in his seat to line up. Not by much mind you but a couple inches of lean can make a world of difference.

This is the problem with the FW perhaps more than any other plane in the game and it isn't a modelling issue but a view movement issue. Oleg can't put the pilot's head higher in the cockpit or we wouldn't be able to aim through the gunsight although I think in normal, non-combat situations the pilot sat higher and simply glanced over the dash and around the struts to track his foe.

That is simply my opinion based on what I've seen. The only other possible point of contention is refraction through that thick armour glass but even this is really a relatively minor thing although every bit helps.

Some freedom of view movement would most benefit the FockeWolfe but I won't kick that horse again quite yet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ugly_Kid
12-22-2004, 10:30 PM
Zen it's o.k like that, thank you very much, you can have them. Somehow I have to upload them again and again, my webspace seems to disappear - I'll have to see about that after the christmas http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

If copperhead says something is right in the hatable nazi kites then there really must be a big danish dog burried in the issue, me thinks. Yet people provide pictures and don't go all boohaa, noone hasn't even threatened to kill the rabbit yet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Now Messerschmitt set a mark in light weight design, examples of his work can be still found in the professional literature. His focus was on the machine. Kurt Tank set another mark, this was in cockpit design in the ergonomy that was a revolutionary piece of work in the work load reduction and visibility at the time. His focus was in the man inside the machine - his ideas were by no means a small part of the very success the complete FW design had. Denying that part of history gives a very poor view of a person. I don't mind 2D realization of a cockpit so much, but I mind doing the history wrong. Imagine a future sim with FW where you'd have an excellent view, this would get judged by the standards set here, "oh you can see out and you don't stall all the time. Your FW is a biased nazi UFO and nothing like a real thing in IL-2"

Now, imagine taking the normal view from FW in the game, shift it sideways only - no up and down work, no back and forward play no crouching zombie kung fu style for shooting. Then move the Revi-cross higher on the glass, plenty of room for that, realign the guns - ready! I truly don't believe the current revi cross position on the glass is backed up by anything.

Ugly_Kid
12-22-2004, 10:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PriK:
I beleive the FW190 had a great cockpit view but the problem lays in the positioning of the pilot while aiming through the gunsight.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think so too in a way. The 3D modeling is not that bad, sure the bars and the frames come quite blunt and massive when projected flat on a screen but the issue is IMO the working positioning.

A very good compensation would be moving the normal view /there you hardly see the bar) sideways only for gunsight view and instead move the Revi cross higher on the glass.

Smokin256
12-22-2004, 11:23 PM
The Fw-190 is just one of many planes who's viewpoint/gunsights/cockpits are wrong As the Bf-109 movie & the Mustang picture from Willey show. This is just one reason that we need to-with tears in our eyes-say good bye to the IL2 series & hello to BoB.

Prik Mentions the pilot sitting up higher in normal flight & having to 'scrunch' down a little bit to look through the gunsight. this seems reasonable but let me ask you this. Where did this idea come from? Look at where the gunsight is mounted in the Bf-109 movie that Willey showed and think for a second about this. The Germans mounted the gunsight off-center to the right becaused they realized most people were right eye dominant correct? And putting it off-center puts the gunsight in front of the right Eye. But why would you bother to do that if the pilot had to scrunch down or move his head at all to see through it?

In all planes in the game we should be looking through more or less the center of the windscreen if not a little higher. And the gunsight should be placed accordingly. Why would an aircraft designer make a windscreen 6 inches tall & then have the pilot look through the bottom two inches of it? How did this concept get started?

Cheers..........Smokin256

Hetzer_II
12-23-2004, 12:10 AM
The copper clown is back again.. ;-)

Greets

Xnomad
12-23-2004, 12:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
jeez! you guys are all pi$$ing and moaning about the 190 forward view and the USAAF/UNS-USMC pilots just had every major aircaft after 1944 snatched right out from under. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif I think it's time you boys give this one a serous rest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't mean this as a personal attack however, I've mentioned this many times on these forums, the Luftwaffe only have 2 single engined prop fighters the Bf 109 and the Fw 190 to choose from; So that's half the selection we are complaining about.

The US have P-51, P-47, P-39, P-40, P-60, F4U, F6, etc.

Considering that this game was originally started as a Russian front game Luftwaffe vs VVS it just makes the issue even more pressing.

I would like to add to the thread the following:

A plane is designed for a pilot to be able to use his weapons system to it's fullest effect without guns a plane isn't a fighter etc. So when designing a bomber everything is designed to make sure the bomber gets to the target and delivers it's ordinance.

With a fighter the plane is designed to shoot other planes down, simple as that it has really no other purpose.
So don't you think that the view forward for a weapons system on a fighter would be one of the biggest priorities when designing?

What is the point if your fighter is the fastest, the most manoeuvrable, the fastest climber, the most heavily armed, the most heavily armoured and the pilot has difficulty doing the one thing that the plane was made to do, shoot another plane down??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Somebody please explain that to me or do we have to get Kurt Tank back from the after life for a nice discussion over tea and biscuits? OK? I'll go get the Ouija board out.

Oleg_Maddox
12-23-2004, 01:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

I was sitting in two of them. As well as I have manufacture blueprints of 10 kg weight. As well as I have speciall trainig film for FW190 pilot that show the problem of gunsight view and how to make shots in this case...
Thats all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg, while I personally don't think the current view is accurate, from your statement here I can see why you feel the view is correct because you have several different sources to support it. My question then is related to Eric Brown's inspection of the aircraft and how he felt the 190a had a better forward view than the Spitfire. The spit's view in game is not so great either, but imho it's just a tad easier to shoot from than the 190 is, which would give the spit the better view (even if only by a little bit). I don't have the exact quote handy but my impression was that Mr. Brown felt the 190 was superior.

If you have time, what are your thoughts about the relationship between the in-game spit view and the in-game 190? Do you think they match up well? Obviously you must think so or they would be different but I am curious if you have any comments on the two.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

<S!> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Please take in attention my not native English, but I hope to be precise in terms.

Eric Brown not always clear in his statements and it is possible to talk his comments by diferent way.
So forward view in FW190 is good only on the ground when you look left-right the nose.
All the other comments and comparisons that I have in my account tell that DIRECT forward view in FW is way worse than in Bf-109G (German and Russian), La-5(Russisn trials), Yak-9(Russian trials), Spitfire V(Russisn trials), etc, then is going other comparison "look around" where FW considered as one of the best.
So the confusion is going from the mix of terms...
Eric Brown always tell right things. But some time these things should be evalutated not as pure text, but with reader knowledge about what he tell...

Same terms mix for example in British test of FW vs Spit, where the frase "climbing better" is given without any other conditions.... The we take official RAF and LW data for climb for both planes we get Spitfire really better....
The problem is that missed on parapameter... on which speed it climbs better... And then which type of climb described... But described zoom climb from maximal speed... and there in test FW was some 80 km/h faster (don't remeber excat digits). Of course in such conditions FW will do the jobe better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
After I posted this evaluation for some users... they begun to love FW... because they finally found how to use it right according to how it was really.

Ugly_Kid
12-23-2004, 02:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
So forward view in FW190 is good only on the ground when you look left-right the nose.
All the other comments and comparisons that I have in my account tell that DIRECT forward view in FW is way worse than in Bf-109G (German and Russian), La-5(Russisn trials), Yak-9(Russian trials), Spitfire V(Russisn trials), etc <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brown says:"It sat high on the ground, the oleo legs of its undercarriage appearing extraordinaly long, and it was immediately obvious that, despite the superlative job of cowling done by the Focke-Wulf designers, the big BMW 801D air-cooled radial engine was pretty obtrusive. Nevertheless, I was pleasantly surprised to find, after clambering into the somewhat narrow cockpit, that the forward view was still rather better than offered by the Bf 109, the Spitfire or the Mustang."

and in the flight:

"...The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, was somewhat better than that of the Spitfire owning to the nose-down attitude of the Fw 190 in the flight"

Sorry I interpret it so that he says that the visibility on the ground wasn't that great but the forward visibility in flight was better than in the other contemporary aircraft.

AFDU 18.8.1942

"The view during taxing, due to the tail wheel, is bad..."

and

"The good visibility from the pilot's seat makes FW-190 particularly well suited for low level flight and ground attack. The view is slightly tilted downwards, which is the best protection against ground contact during an extreme low-level flight."

AFDU 3/20/24, 9.8.1942

"The view from the pilot's seat is defenately better than from Spifire, the all-around view is better than on any aircraft flown by the testpilots up to now."

Kit Carson "Best of Breed"
"...Visibility with the full view canopy was superb, as it was in the Mustang."

At the same time he doesn't forget to mention a bad visibility from Bf-109.

Willi Reschke about Ta-152:"Nach dem Schließen des Schiebedaches hatte man einen sehr guten Rundblick - und durch die gr¶ßere Bewegungsfreiheit auch einen ungew¶hnt guten Blick nach hinten."

The guy says the over-all view was excellent and due to the freedom to move the view to the back was unusually good. He does not single out the forward view as being bad or worse very interesting direction for a pilot and if somebody is giving such a praise for the view he would defenately put the inevitable "but..." there.

Julius Meimberg:"...Auf dem Rumpf sitzt eine Schiebehaube mit eingebautem Kopfpanzer, die uneungesch¤rnkte Rundsicht bietet"

A sliding canopy rests on the fuselage offering an unblocked overall view...again "but..." is missing. Were the pilots interested only looking backwards?

Now this is a short list of pros but I've yet to see one document/quote critizising the forward view _in the air_

Ugly_Kid
12-23-2004, 03:12 AM
Like said the problem is the sighting view, and how it goes with the 3D-model (which obviously has it's limititions on 2D) - refraction aside etc. head movement from normal view ONLY sideways and instead move the Revi cross higher on the glass and the view is considerably more better. I don't think Revi cross position is casted on steel or anything...


Something like this:
http://people.freenet.de/majamaki/justanidea.jpg

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-23-2004, 03:38 AM
i secend that:

is is not logical that a plane designed as "pure Fighter" (quoted: Eric Brown) has such a bad view from the cockpit that you can't shoot anything which is moving 10? different from your flightpath.
I don't say the cockpit is wrong, it is one of the nicest Cockpits done for FB but again, have you ever tryed to fly a low level attack, which it was suited verry well according to pilot accounts?
you can's see the ground in it, you can't even see the horizon in this plane!

i can't complain about the planes performance because it is actually a verry nice plane in game, but not suited for nothing it was mainly used in the east, as already said low level runs a verry complicated in that plane, ripping off your prop-blades is not verry difficult...

IVJG51_Swine
12-23-2004, 03:58 AM
Good info on Brown's reporthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NN_EnigmuS
12-23-2004, 04:19 AM
hehe oleg is this really impossible you had a film with a kind of fw with much more armored glass and you do the cokpit view of it(as the bar is really big)

i had a cool pic for you as we had such a good view in game what about making this on side front glasses hehe
with the other pic you can obviously see too that the front glass is 2X the normal glass
you can see many example of armored glasses size but the default front glass is not that big

lead was right there is different front glasses with model as a8 got a more front armored glass but not that big as this one just see the ugly_kid pics the front glass on a8 and the bar it must be the default a8 view

you are right saying you've got the correct forward view but for a sturmbock or a plane with a bigger front glass like this one

http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103803901.jpg

for comparaison with normal front glass
http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103804145.jpg

and a standard fwa8 front glass
http://209.163.147.67/zen/files/zen/fw/HPIM0746.jpg


ps:my opinion don't reflect my squad opinion on the subject,it's only my personnal way of thinking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

PlaneEater
12-23-2004, 04:41 AM
Hate to break it to you, Enigmus, but this:

http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103566665.jpg

...is not a Revi.

http://www.sam.hi-ho.ne.jp/ki-44/image2/EZ42.jpg

That would be an Askania EZ-42 gyro gunsight, similar to the American K-14 'Acemaker'.

Completely. Different. Can-o-worms.

The rear post about three inches back from the reflector glass in this pic:
http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103566360.jpg
also leads me to think this might be an EZ-42. The long distance between the reflector glass and the backup ghostring sight post is the tipoff.

NN_EnigmuS
12-23-2004, 04:52 AM
sorry but about nowotny pics and the priller one you are wrong are it is obviously reviC12/D like those one

http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103566377.jpg
http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1103567831.jpg

for the gyro possible as i know some german pilot install it on their fwa8 like the pilot of the kolle alaaf plane and as i ve never seen this kind of revi and this kind of installation

BBB_Hyperion
12-23-2004, 07:55 AM
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/190_sight.jpg

Hmm what about this then ?

Blackjack174
12-23-2004, 05:37 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

PriK
12-23-2004, 06:42 PM
FW didn't fly "nose down" but it looks that way because of the plane's misleading shape. A bit of an optical illusion really. Don't worry, it fooled enemy pilots in their first accounts too.

Bussard_1
12-23-2004, 09:00 PM
Excuse me Prik,
but do I understand that you just told us that an aviator with the depth of experience with the real deal, and many many other a/c of the same time period is in error when he tested the first flyable Würger captured by the RAF?
Let me consider,on the one hand a test pilot praises an enemy a/c on the other hand you dismiss his technical assessment. Cmdr Eric Brown's assessment has the greater credibility.
Planeeater, nice catch on the EZ42 sight.I wonder what the likelyhood of us every seeing that puppy might be??
Merry Christmas troops.
Bussard.

BBB_Hyperion
12-23-2004, 11:22 PM
This AFDU tests lack of details sometimes but i doubt that they wrote nose down attitude cause they were bored of all the testing. On the other hand we find high mach tests for spits 0.9 and spits that dont outclimb fw . So it may be very well the case that these tests were manipulated to give false claims into enemy hands that make them either feel safer or feeling inferior or they were all 100 % correct .)

Here is however a US test that describes the view downwards compareable to Hellcat or Corsair.
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/corsair3.jpg

But that is not the case of the discussion here cause the only issue here should be the bar and how it appears and why it appears this way.

Here is maybe a indication on the position of the revi relative to the bar but to use it correct
coordinates,viewangles in plane are needed to use a projection of the positions.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/anschusscheibeFW190A6.jpg

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-24-2004, 01:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackjack174:
as i dont know if its commonly known, maybe worth a try:
http://www.informatik.fh-wiesbaden.de/~kpaka001/data/fw190a4_nosedown.jpg

and i was by far away from the combat flaps top speed , even higher flaps could be used for ground strafing (and therefore more nose down attitude)
but i dont know how much of a speed penalty the combat flaps introduces , so questionable in A2A combat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well this is not usable in air to air operations, nor does it make any sense.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-24-2004, 01:48 AM
@Hyperion

200mph and 60? deflection ?

well i can't get anything past 20? in deflection now matter how big/fast the target is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Ugly_Kid
12-24-2004, 02:37 AM
Hmm...quite a few testreports and quotes actually stating the visibility, particularly gunsight view, better than i.e Spitfire. Now, I would be really interested to see a german document stating i.e Bf-109 view better than Fw or another British document suddenly stating the opposite (Spitfire better than Fw). The contradicting material seems to be absent.

Prik, the AFDU is not alone in that nose-down statement, really.

WOLFMondo
12-24-2004, 03:46 AM
I agree with the freedom of movement argument. In this sim the pilot can only rotate and zoom in/zoom out there view, theres no other movement. And the view in the FW190 is better than the Sptifire (not the gunsight view), just compare them, the Spitfire's view is obstucted by large bits of metal on the canopy all over the place and the view out to the lower left and right when looking forward is bad, in the FW190 its pretty good. Its instruments are also nicely placed, like the P51's. The 109 needs lots of head looking down time which is one reason I've never really liked it to much.

PriK
12-24-2004, 08:02 AM
You guys are taking pilot accounts (which is hardly a scientific method of deduction) and using it as some sort of proof for your own conclusions.

I think the FW has one of the best views in the sim just like those pilots said, only like WOLFMondo has alluded to, our limitation of view movement and projection of a three dimensional cockpit onto a two dimensional screen gives us the current effect of "bad" visibility.

Charts and blueprints mean something. Pilot accounts are suspect if only for their subjective interpretation.

BBB_Hyperion
12-24-2004, 09:58 AM
Well one part of the bad visibility is the player viewpoint in il2 in zoomed out view but that does not explain the size of this bar and that is the point of discussion here in the revi view.

It may be very well possible that Oleg's interpretation and the other version are both correct depending on the metal cover installement and armor glass size, refraction etc.

Blueprints dont proof anything in this case as you can see here we have the 5 degrees of the AFDU report as 5?35'0" degrees . But there is no mention how its optained or measured.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fwforwardview.jpg

Ugly_Kid
12-24-2004, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PriK:
Charts and blueprints mean something. Pilot accounts are suspect if only for their subjective interpretation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would view test pilot's report of enemy aircraft as shown by Hyperion here in a bit different light than pilot's recollection of his own mount but maybe it's just me...

IVJG51_Swine
12-24-2004, 05:01 PM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Just raise the sight up a little...Problem solved...Not to toot my horn here but I also have some real world experience with actually sitting in two different FW 190s and I have to say that the cockpit is modeled pretty right on for the most part....The only thing that is really off is the height of the gunsight, it needs to be a little higher. The problem is then solved...</span> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think that Oleg thinks that we are saying that his model is completely off and thats not the case, it just needs a minor adjustment...No big deal..

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-24-2004, 05:22 PM
yeah ture, no one said that the 3D-work is wrong.

but i think before we se ANY change in the FW190-Pit most of us will be six feet deeper...

NN_EnigmuS
12-28-2004, 04:58 PM
yup sad but true is anyone understanding this and can explain it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/anschusscheibeFW190A6.jpg

as for blue print it show certainly nothing exactly about the cokpit view but something obviously wrong here

and the red view as in game explain a lot on the fact we see the bar and even the gun bulges of fwa8 lol the blue one goes on middle of the revi so seems right if the blue print is right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
and this only stand for a pilot aiming trough the revi as many pilot were sit higher in their plane

to me the explanation of the fw view you have seen in sitting in a real fw is:
-that the revi was too low as we can see on the picture you've shown oleg
-so that for seeing through the middle of the revi you got a low seat position or perhaps you cannot change seat position and you was too small for the seat position which was in this plane

http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1104280054.jpg

merry chrismas as i wasn't there to all and thanks to oleg for 3.03

BBB_Hyperion
12-28-2004, 07:38 PM
The Aiming Paper is for setting up guns in the fw.
It shows not only the guns aimpoint black cross with circle but the position of the guns black cross and even the revi position. So it might be possible to see if it is in the right position.

You mixed something there on the blueprint , it is obvious that there is no straight line. Its not mentioned how its obtained but judging by the drawing refraction is meant. There is no other reason i can think of that the line of sight goes up. Armored glass has a higher refraction index than normal glass btw

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/refraction/refraction.html

NN_EnigmuS
12-29-2004, 12:31 PM
yup and at ground refraction angle is higher as the front glass make a higher angle so if you are watching trough the revi on ground the view is perhaps worst than in fly too it's only pure hypotezis http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif as i undesrtand not that much in refraction

Copperhead310th
12-29-2004, 07:27 PM
http://67.18.37.14/40/30/upload/p947955.jpg

p1ngu666
12-29-2004, 08:09 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

IVJG51_Swine
12-30-2004, 05:24 AM
Hey Copperhead, this topic is about the 190, not your sex life...They have meds for that now too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NN_EnigmuS
12-30-2004, 05:40 AM
lool http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

anyway someone post a thing about Ta152 having higher revi and somebody tells him it was because of more armored glass so that they make it upper for not seeing the bar so if it was a well known problem and correct on ta152 for better visibility and aiming

so why they do not make the same before on all fw as if the game view is correct it will have been a serious problem and if it was corrected on ta152 with more armored glass it must not have been a problem before with a noram armored glass

i know it's pure logic but like beating dead horse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Tvrdi
01-01-2005, 12:56 PM
http://server2.uploadit.org/files/gnomisa-FW190.jpg

Hi, this is the call from the past..here is everything ok with the FW190 gunsight view....sry for hearing that the future is "black"....

LBR_Molders
01-02-2005, 03:24 PM
Those pictures talks more than a ton words by anyone who try say that FW190 cockpit in FB is right...in FB+AEP+$#@%$ its Pilot's sightseeing is shorter than it really was .

With those lots of PANDEMIC things that appear at each patch..i recognize the efforts to put more resources/planes etc...but i personally should prefer as it was in the past, but with the right dots sizes, netcode correction etc.