PDA

View Full Version : in case nobody saw it yet: 190 forward view study



Pages : [1] 2

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 07:14 AM
http://www.triplane.net/190view.htm

and whole article:
http://www.triplane.net/restoration_intro.htm

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

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 07:14 AM
http://www.triplane.net/190view.htm

and whole article:
http://www.triplane.net/restoration_intro.htm

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

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 07:50 AM
thank you, that's the best I've seen about 190 cockpits until now


I hope one day Oleg will do a corrected 190 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
09-02-2003, 07:55 AM
hi,
indeed that's 'real things'...

and notably a so called uggly 'reference pic' of a Ta 152 with additional made 'strange green lines' ..

I wonder who that did ?...and for what ever reasons ..

http://www.triplane.net/Reference%20Pix.htm

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 08:11 AM
The guy (cirx) has done some seriously good job here !

Hopefully someday we get what we deserve.
Maybe it will be corrected in Il2:Restored Battles... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cirx for president...

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:23 AM
Excellent job! Let´s hope it will have the desired effect /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:40 AM
Absolutely fantastic!

http://www.triplane.net/images/Fw%20190%20102b.jpg

Excellent view forwards I must say /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



PS. even if the prop is obscuring the transition from sidewindow to front view a little, it is easy to see the refraction in the 50mm glass.

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:48 AM
view when aiming

http://www.triplane.net/images/Fw%20190%20161.jpg

so much for the bar /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




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

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 11:36 AM
hi,

Hristos wrote:
- view when aiming
-

tip at Hristos.. downnload the pics and zoom in by 'Paint Shop Pro' ..change a little bit the brightness or gamma to higher value...and you can notice more real refraction ..

zoom this in..and we are coming a bit more to 'gunsight view'..by using the right pilot eye..
anyway..a revi view is in preparation for a future photo..
.
http://www.triplane.net/images/Fw%20190%20083.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 12:04 PM
I think cirx is doing an outstanding job with the photo report on the A6, it´s not often one gets the chance of a hands-on experience in the cockpit of a rare non-replica warbird. The photo material he linked on his site is the most useful and conclusive reference material presented to date, this really should settle the view issue once and for all. I hope the restauration project of the FW-190 will be a success! Both, for the South African Museum of Military History, and for our digital "FW-190" in IL-2:FB /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .




============================
The important thing in [tactics] is to suppress the enemys useful actions but allow his useless actions. However, doing this alone is defensive.

Miyamoto Musashi (1584-1645)
Japanese Samurai and Philosopher
(More than 60 Victories in Hand-to-Hand combat.)

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 12:22 PM
I think in all fairness some comment from one of the FB team members would be a good thing. Even if he's only saying 'we can't change it now, too much work'.

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 12:24 PM
I especially liked the part about if you can see the bar then you can see the gun bulges (and nose?) so the bar would only cut the view if the engine wasn't there.

So much for incomplete FW pics with thinner glass and who knows what placed in the view... that white thing was not the bar, probably something the nose skin goes over or maybe a temporary fixture.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 01:06 PM
Yup, that lower frame just practically disappears./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif This is what I have been saying all along.

To repeat, the inner surface of the glass has to be the reference plane for the pilot's view.

Also notice the side frames seem narrower.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/taylor-greycap2.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 01:25 PM
http://www.triplane.net/images/Fw%20190%20161.jpg


If there was a revi in there, then we'd be to low to aim trough it.

Raising our head would mean seeing - THE BAR.

So, I dont think this really shows anything except that you need a revi installed.


Oh and Achim

AchimT wrote:
- I think in all fairness some comment from one of the
- FB team members would be a good thing. Even if he's
- only saying 'we can't change it now, too much work'.

They have commented already with a very clear message that said "Not going to change". I think, in all fairness, people should respect that.


Message Edited on 09/02/0301:28PM by IJG54_Nowi

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 01:47 PM
IJG54_Nowi wrote:

-
- They have commented already with a very clear
- message that said "Not going to change". I think, in
- all fairness, people should respect that.
-
-

No problem in not being changed, though a downer/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif , but don't give 'us' "you is wrong", when it clearly not 'us' that is wrong.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/taylor-greycap2.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 02:09 PM
quiet_man wrote:
--
-
- I hope one day Oleg will do a corrected 190 cockpit
-


No, we did it correct. And these photos just confirm it if you do not see it yet.

As I posted before and now we don't plan to modify cockpit of FW-190 or any plane in a sim.

Oleg Maddox
1C:Maddox Games

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 02:16 PM
- They have commented already with a very clear
- message that said "Not going to change". I think, in
- all fairness, people should respect that.

We do in some way but it's getting reduced to kind of Ignorance. Now I dont want start a fire here but if the developers are WILLING to make all new cockpits for Mustangs, Zekes, B17 .... WHAT is so difficult to change an existing one ?
It's getting a matter of pride I think but for all the FW-Fans out there it's hardly reproducable how the heck the LW ever had so much success with this plane, when you can't even remotely do defelection shooting or at least estimate a lead.
I Guess the developers, and especially OLEG, was pi***d off by the reaction of the community and that's why we wont see a change I guess but it's real pain to see modelling of new planes, tweaking of existing ones but no word on this one. On the other side I guess once OLEG responds to this thread we will have the following:
- at least 40 "BUMP"-spammers
- about 30 "GREAT NEWS, THX for REPLY" Spammers
and finally about 28 rather furious "LW" OR "VVS" Flamers (depending on which side was more fortunate by Olegs response)

this will leave the remaining TWO constructive posters virtually unheard and thus reducing the whole issue to some child-banter...(check the infamous FW190 thread on this. A lot of constructive information was drowned by all the spammers..)

I think if someone wants the other to say "Yes I maybe made a mistake" he should also leave him the room/freedom to admit it without losing honor.
So far this whole Picture-gallery looks very impressive but the so-called LW-Whiners seem to be in bad luck as always something crucial is amiss. Either it's the revi or the right Cockpit-glass...
Also the Cockpit in the game looks damn good. Unfortunately it doesn't seem combat worthy... Which is the striking contradiction to the historical performance...

I for my part think that the infamous bar is pain in the *** but only a waterdrop in the ocean. Of course one could get a slightly better aim but it's still next to nothing compared to the P-47 (which is great) or the Hurri (heck , even the 109 !).
Aiming is real pain in the bird...

I hope that maybe someday we'll see a change..

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 02:27 PM
hi,
in case of move up the back of the plane to horizontal position(remember the convergence pic..) and after rebuild the revi ..some of You gys will stop those apologetic comments..

anyway : should the developer go ahead with next steps in patches, updates, addons and new sims in a way like that.. You Nowi suggest.?

Are You Nowi the official speaker of the developer ?

hmm..in all fairness and respect 'where is the beef'..

where is the will of progress ..doing design features better than in the past....
even when new future features like 'interactive 3D cockpits' are knocking at the door...

I'm interest to more real pilots + revi views of all planes which are playable in game and the comments of the developer ...how they improve the running game or their intend of a next development to more realistc gamers view in a pc-combatsim..

a easy wish ? Or ?

..
IJG54_Nowi wrote:
--
- If there was a revi in there, then we'd be to low to
- aim trough it.
-
- Raising our head would mean seeing - THE BAR.
-
- So, I dont think this really shows anything except
- that you need a revi installed.
-
-
- Oh and Achim
-
- AchimT wrote:
-- I think in all fairness some comment from one of the
-- FB team members would be a good thing. Even if he's
-- only saying 'we can't change it now, too much work'.
-
- They have commented already with a very clear
- message that said "Not going to change". I think, in
- all fairness, people should respect that.
-
-

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 02:28 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:
-
-
- No, we did it correct. And these photos just confirm
- it if you do not see it yet.
-
- As I posted before and now we don't plan to modify
- cockpit of FW-190 or any plane in a sim.
-
- Oleg Maddox
- 1C:Maddox Games
-

Ah, NOPE not correct. The lower armour glass frame is TOO LARGE(HIGH).

If the sighting line for the gunsight is on the >>inner<< surface of the armour glass, so should be the view of the lower cockpit frame.

What we have now is NOT an "authentic" pilot cockpit view.



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/taylor-greycap2.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 02:39 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:
-
- quiet_man wrote:
---
--
-- I hope one day Oleg will do a corrected 190 cockpit
--
-
-
- No, we did it correct. And these photos just confirm
- it if you do not see it yet.
-
- As I posted before and now we don't plan to modify
- cockpit of FW-190 or any plane in a sim.
-
- Oleg Maddox
- 1C:Maddox Games
-



Yeah, I see it is absolutely correct to have ones head lower than revi view when relaxing, just opposite of the study above, and then stretching your neck up to be able to see the (relatively low) revi line.

Every Fw190 Pilot wants to have the worst view possible by ducking so much inside the fuselage that he sees nothing forward.


And yep, it is totally correct that no Fw190 pilot ever saw the nose of his plane, nor the MG Bulges, without "being sure to have passed the top cover of his canopy".

Totally agree.


JESUS...I'm out of comments...there's nothing in my mind I could say now.




Message Edited on 09/02/0303:58PM by TheRealMatrix

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 02:40 PM
hi,

maybe the next sim ? and to more planes ?

meanwhile the designers have time to develop more advanced cockpit views ..and I guess/hope they think about a better camera view in a new game-engine...

anyway:...the truth is coming ...but sometimes a little later ..
I'm wondering about this suggest ..???



Oleg_Maddox wrote:
-
- quiet_man wrote:
---
--
-- I hope one day Oleg will do a corrected 190 cockpit
--
-
-
- No, we did it correct. And these photos just confirm
- it if you do not see it yet.
-
- As I posted before and now we don't plan to modify
- cockpit of FW-190 or any plane in a sim.
-
- Oleg Maddox
- 1C:Maddox Games
-

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 02:42 PM
Please, people, behave. Let's not get this thread locked, at least not due to being rude.

IMO, what Cirx suggests is that if you could see the bar, you could see the nose as well (as in the first pic in this thread).

However, if you look level near the Revi height (as in the sim), you do not see the bar and the nose. You can only see the MG bulges (as in the second pic in this thread).

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

Message Edited on 09/02/0302:57PM by Hristos

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 02:53 PM
hi,
sorry few questions...to the last..

1) why do this photos confirm to the basic design in game ?
(there are some more at that website + more in the
pipeline )..
2) why no modify of cockpit views/gunsight views to more
planes in the running game


3) any modify of a better camera view in game or next sim ?

we are looking forward to more progress by Maddox team ..

thx


Oleg_Maddox wrote:
-
- quiet_man wrote:

-- I hope one day Oleg will do a corrected 190 cockpit
--
-
-
- No, we did it correct. And these photos just confirm
- it if you do not see it yet.
-
- As I posted before and now we don't plan to modify
- cockpit of FW-190 or any plane in a sim.
-
- Oleg Maddox
- 1C:Maddox Games
-

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 03:23 PM
Great work Hristos! I really appreciate your efforts. Don't worry. In the future we will have more WW2 simulators.

http://asakiyumemishi.com/fw190B.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 03:25 PM
hi,
Hristos...Your rank 'lonley postman'..
believe me..these developers have their own truth in this case including their apologetics...You are like 'Cassandra in the desert'..

don't worry the truth will come more and more by 'real things'..pics,videos and restauration experts of WWII warbirds..

it's the typical illusion of game dvelopers that they estimate..they have leased the truth in that genre...



Hristos wrote:
- Please, people, behave. Let's not get this thread
- locked, at least not due to being rude.
-
- IMO, what Cirx suggests is that if you could see the
- bar, you could see the nose as well (as in the first
- pic in this thread).
-
- However, if you look level near the Revi height (as
- in the sim), you do not see the bar and the nose.
- You can only see the MG bulges (as in the second pic
- in this thread).
-
-

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 03:44 PM
IJG54_Nowi wrote:

- If there was a revi in there, then we'd be to low to
- aim trough it.
-
- Raising our head would mean seeing - THE BAR.
-
- So, I dont think this really shows anything except
- that you need a revi installed.
http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/comparison.jpg

Yes, you can see the infamous bar, but in RL it is narrower than how it is depicted in the game.



http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/rcafpost.jpg

Message Edited on 09/02/0310:45AM by Chadburn

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 03:44 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:
-
- No, we did it correct. And these photos just confirm
- it if you do not see it yet.
-
- As I posted before and now we don't plan to modify
- cockpit of FW-190 or any plane in a sim.
-
- Oleg Maddox
- 1C:Maddox Games
-


Sorry Oleg, I know you are bored with that, and neither I did participate on those long 'FW 190 forward view' threads.

But this time, 'you is wrong' . Your 3D model of the cocpit may be 100% right - but your engine does not simulate that the light "breaks" on the THICK, HEAVILY ANGLED GLASS . It works like a prism. Because glass is tilted towards pilot, he sees the light ray LOWER than as it hits to outer glass surface.

I have done a very high quality illustration for you : /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

.............Angled, 50mm Thick Armor Glass
...............\
............\...\
.............\...\...Incoming ray of light
PILOT`S......\...\ __<_____<____<__________
EYES.___<__<__\./.\
................\...\-------------------------------------
.................\............Engine cowling


That`s why your forward cocpit view is wrong, despite the 3D model itself is OK. You engine does not model ray of light breaking when entering more dense material (glass).

It`s high school physics. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I don`t ask you anything else, just to think about how light reacts when entering denser material... it no longer travels straight in a line, is it?


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

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 03:55 PM
That is what I have been saying Issy, but no one is listening (but you understand this), the frame should be seen as the pilot would see it ON THE INNER SURFACE OF THE ARMOUR GLASS.

As it is now, there is NO armour glass.

Nowi, the Revi does not have to be there to show that the lower frame is the wrong size.

--------

The Ki-84 will have this same error, so lets do it correctly, so no changes will be asked for.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/taylor-greycap2.jpg


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

Message Edited on 09/02/03 10:57AM by MiloMorai

Message Edited on 09/02/0311:08AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 04:33 PM
Thank you so much for these new pictures, they really are excelent work I salute you!

Hopefully we get Revi installed somehow,sometime that would be great /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Olegs 3D model is correct and by the book imho it just doesnt model the effects used in real FW190 cocpit /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif In next sim I hope /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 04:48 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:

- No, we did it correct. And these photos just confirm
- it if you do not see it yet.

-
- Oleg Maddox
- 1C:Maddox Games
-

I am really sorry, mister Maddox, but I dont see your point/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

At all. do you mind enlightening us


"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king."


Message Edited on 09/02/0307:37PM by Ankanor

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 04:52 PM
What an amazing view this bird must of had!
Wierd how all the books and pilot reports said this, must have been some evil German conspiricy. lol

At last some indisputable evidence that the view is wrong in the sim.

Great work!



"Do unto others before they do unto you"

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 04:55 PM
Ankanor, please edit your post and remain respectful.

Differences of opinion can be debated without resorting to sarcasm and name calling.

Thankyou



http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/rcafpost.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 05:14 PM
agreed.

It models everything correctly EXCEPT the visibility.

We know that is because refraction is not modelled.

we're left with two choices:

a) leave it as is and the view over the nose is wrong but the cockpit is correct technically.
b) alter the cockpit so that it is wrong but the view is correct.

a) leads to an unrealistic combat ability within the sim.
b) leads to a realistic combat ability within the sim.

so, it comes down to this in the end, what is more important? Being "technically correct - but still wrong because refraction isn't modelled" or being "functionally correct".

Typical programmer vs user issue - the programmer wants it to be technically right whilst the user wants it to work properly.









http://www3.telus.net/ice51/taipans/tpn_bard.jpg (http://taipans.dyndns.org)

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 05:38 PM
Simply reduce the size of the bar infront of the revi and drop the mg bulges.

As far as I can see from the sight view photos the bar is virtualy nonexistant (refraction) and the bulges are just seen above the bar.

In the sim the bar is taller (no refraction) and the mg bulges are just seen above the bar.

So if the bar was made smaller and the mg bulges stayed just above the bar there should be plenty of room in the sight for deflection shooting.

There shouldnt be a need for compromise.

At least the 190 is now flying more like the real thing after the patch, which is some consolation for the improperly modeld view.

"Do unto others before they do unto you"

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 05:49 PM
hi,

here the wire frame mode (gunsight view: shift+F1)

every designer know what to do..
overframed 'bar' behind the revi ...camera view of the game engine and more ..
if of interest I post more analyzes of other planes..

http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/2555451.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
09-02-2003, 06:02 PM
Guys - even with these excellent pictures - I still see this issue as pretty relative - I allways find myself reading the author's opinion rather than just looking at the picture - to see how they think it supports their point of view. The bar may be depicted as a bit thicker in the simm - but this may have no impact on the functional view. The relative/refractive downward shift of the image would be difficult to model - in fact very processor intensive - and a cluged lowering of the lower frame would probably accomplish nothing since it is practically flush with the upper cowling. Personally I think Oleg's probably got it about right.

I flew the 190 online last night. Given the number ofkills I got in relation to the number of times I landed safely at my base I have to seriously question whether I want to ask Oleg to do anything MORE for this plane! I've been flying this baby, by preference, since IL2 and I just love how it is now.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:20 PM
I agree.

The cowling is flush with the bar, but add the revi infront of the reduced bar and and there should be plenty of view for deflection shots.

Remember the cowling is flush with the reduced bar in the photos, and in the sim the cowling is flush with the bar also, except the bar is much thicker.

So there should be no decline in veiw by reducing the bar as well as the cowling as shown in the photo.

There is no need to model actual refraction just reduce the bar size as the pilor would have seen.

The propper flight view is another story though.




"Do unto others before they do unto you"

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:29 PM
hi,
nice diplomatic words from Nagual..

anyway : but where is the so called 'progress of the dveloper' in updating this game ?
Ok ..we all have many wishes ..
pilot view.. this is an important feature in every combat flightsim ..
a change to more realistic gunsight view should not a problem to a advanced designer...

myself ..I'm looking forward how the developers of LockOn did the job../camera view/pilot view..



ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- Guys - even with these excellent pictures - I still
- see this issue as pretty relative - I allways find

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:35 PM
Chadburn wrote:
-
- Ankanor, please edit your post and remain
- respectful.

1st, I remain respectful

2nd, I do not see debates. it is one sided. sadly/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif ...

3rd, no offence was intended in calling Him almighty. OK, a bit of irony, i admit.

if you still think I will edit my post because You say so, you is wrong(that is irony, too/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) I edit it for the cause(though pointless-He showed it is)

I will be silenced now. no need to spoil the thread like the big one. may the fixed bar be with you/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king."


Message Edited on 09/02/0307:50PM by Ankanor

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 07:22 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- Guys - even with these excellent pictures - I still
- see this issue as pretty relative - I allways find
- myself reading the author's opinion rather than just
- looking at the picture - to see how they think it
- supports their point of view. The bar may be
- depicted as a bit thicker in the simm - but this may
- have no impact on the functional view. The
- relative/refractive downward shift of the image
- would be difficult to model - in fact very processor
- intensive - and a cluged lowering of the lower frame
- would probably accomplish nothing since it is
- practically flush with the upper cowling. Personally
- I think Oleg's probably got it about right.
-
-

Ah but it does have an impact - the vertical FoV is smaller than what it should be. By about 71mm in full size.

A bit thicker??? How about twice. The frame should be almost level with the instrument panel covering shroud. Why would the modelling of the lower frame be hard? It should be modelled as what the pilot sees on the >>INNER SURFACE<< of the armour glass.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/taylor-greycap2.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 07:53 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:
-
- quiet_man wrote:
---
--
-- I hope one day Oleg will do a corrected 190 cockpit
--
-
-
- No, we did it correct. And these photos just confirm
- it if you do not see it yet.
-
- As I posted before and now we don't plan to modify
- cockpit of FW-190 or any plane in a sim.
-
- Oleg Maddox
- 1C:Maddox Games
-

Sorry, many times in life the truth is not black or white but gray

I understand that the cockpit is "correct" modelled
but without refraction the resulting view is wrong.

I wanted to say that I hope "one day" you find a way to get the correct view ("one day" computers might be able to calculate refraction)



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
09-02-2003, 08:05 PM
For gunsight sighting line, refraction cannot be done as of now, but the frame can be. So again, what the pilot sees on the INNER SURFACE of the armour glass is what should be modelled and that means a thinner frame height.

Right now it is an apple and orange mix.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/taylor-greycap2.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 08:29 PM
What I hate, is that Oleg keeps the attitude "You is wrong".. Why can't you just say and admit that you are wrong.. I mean I would be perfectly ok if you would simply said to your Fans: "OK, you are right, but but we simply don't have the time or resources to alter the view in FW-190". This I would be 100% ok.. but instead I have to read your "Be sure - you is wrong" replys all the time..

Sorry, but this is just the way I see it.. I still have great respect to you Oleg, but you gotta swallow your pride /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 08:42 PM
http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/glass2.jpg

what to add more? Who sees it, sees it.



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

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:07 PM
Under construction

The poster I was talking about was using the wrong photo of the 190

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

Message Edited on 09/02/0304:09PM by HarryVoyager

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:09 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:

- No, we did it correct. And these photos just confirm
- it if you do not see it yet.



http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/comparison.jpg



Hmmm...maybe I have to blame my sharp eyes, but I do not see it yet that the right bar size confirms the left one.



And keep in mind that the FW on the right has the small MG17s, not the large MG bulges of the MG131s like on the left.
This is proven by the fact that you see NO BULGES in FB when you fly a MG17-version (A-4, A-5).

The other thing I wonder is, why should the pilot duck more downwards in no-revi-view than in revi view ????????

It should be the other way around. This could be done WITHOUT any change in the cockpit.

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:16 PM
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TQDPAskYou68ntiG4GhUOtYvpXlWtkUo8SzWNV4X3SiOvLw7M dA2h6WxFNa7g*Pw!a8Lq8mJFwv8ELHWM9Abjzi2eiPhkMNjp9V PoXS7e2ULmhdP2Ukj5Q/comparison.jpg?dc=4675437158572409103

Note how you can clearly see the cowling in the second photo? The view is from to high up; that is not the gunsight view we use in Il-2. Now if you lower the view, you are suddenly *very* obscured by the foam padding, much more so than the are in Il-2.

Think about it.

It seems to be that, rather than the bar is modeled to high, that the foam pad is modeled to low.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

Message Edited on 09/02/0304:17PM by HarryVoyager

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:20 PM
Nope, the foam on the preserved aircraft has just known better times, indeed the foam should stop just a the top of the dashboard.

Butch

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 11:01 PM
Getting a little personal over 1" of view aren`t we? Keep up the good work guys...pretty soon we can have ORR to ourselfs. If this issue TOTALLY ruins game for you and you actually jumping developer for this...i don`t even know what to say. Sorry for being offencive...but this FW view story is rather boring by now...

Once we had something rather unique...a dialog between developer and the community...something that no one else has. What a bunch of demanding spoiled brats we are... sad.

To the author of this thread. Thank you so much for your effort mate, nice touch of history there. Great work.

V!

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 11:13 PM
It's not about the issue itself. We all know that the game is probably modelled in an authentic fashion from drawings, and that any difference between the two is a matter of refraction. and small modelling errors (gun bulges).

The issue is the "We don't care, you is wrong" attitude of Oleg, after so many people tried to clearly show that the view in IL-2 is different from an actual FW-190 view (which it is).

We can prove all we want that it is wrong, and all we get is a 1 sentence blurb telling us how we are whining morons wasting our time for having the gall to question him in the first place. Not even an acknowledgment that our interest in this issue is even warranted, nothing, nada. We are made honorary beta testers for this mess of alpha code, and people take it upon themselves to provide the exhaustive information that Oleg demands to show historical innacuracies, and don't even get a real response or any indication of the slightest interest when they do. And people keep bringing good information to the table, and still not a flicker of interest or concern, just denial of everything.

Like that time in IL-2 when the patch introduced the Stuka gear bug, where the gear would rip off at 400km/h. Oleg specifically denied that bug existed, or even that it was possible given the way IL-2 is progarmmed. This of course implying that anyone who brings it up must not know what they're talking about. It took a dozen screenshots of the issue as it occured to even get him to admit it was wrong, much less actually fix it. It so reminiscent of Al-Sahaaf that its not even funny. I'll bet Oleg would even attest that all the climb rates are perfect, and that FB 1.0 was completely bug free, with only "tunes" to be done.

"Yes, the FW-190 view is wrong, but we don't plan to model refraction". Thats it. No more issue. No more aggrivation trying to prove a point when its obvious that the dev team has neither the interest, nor the means to change it. Just don't act as though these concerns are unfounded or erroneous after the trouble people go through to reseach them, and have the audacity to tell those people they are wrong, just so you don't have to admit to an innacuracy.

Yes, the FW-190 view is perfect. Exactly like it is in real life. The great Ace Manfred Quax used to complain bitterly that the revi was blocked by the cockpit frame. As a side note, there are NO American soldiers in Baghdad; non, nada, zero.

At least the smilies are still happy...
http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb06894.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb57471.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb11726.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb75733.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80477.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb64472.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb59442.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80347.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb73057.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb48642.gif


Message Edited on 09/02/0304:36PM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 11:23 PM
StG77_Fennec wrote:

- The issue is the "We don't care, you is wrong"
- attitude of Oleg

I am sorry, but i was following FW threads too mate. And "we don`t care attitude" didn`t figure anywhere as far as i remember. I think the real issue is with us, being pushy and offencive, how about that? He said it once.... no we think it`s correct and not planning to change it...twice...three times. Then 1000 replies post started...then more posts and pictures... how many times NO has to be said? That`s the real question. Does entire FB revolves around FW which is a global killer as is... or it`s matter of "will get it whatever it takes" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 12:42 AM
You're love for "the great god of flight sims" seems to be a bit overmodeled there Ivan.

Fennec is 100% correct. Oleg didn't say "we *think* it's correct and have no plans to change it", he ignored the issue forever, at most, telling everyone they *were* wrong and hs *was* right, then finally got into at least 1 (maybe 2) long drawn out debates, all with a hint of attitude as well.

This is it. It's been proven. Oleg is wrong. It's right there in front of us all. Hell, even Milo and Isegrim are in agreement. That alone speaks volumes. lol

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 12:51 AM
HarryVoyager wrote:

- Note how you can clearly see the cowling in the
- second photo? The view is from to high up; that is
- not the gunsight view we use in Il-2. Now if you
- lower the view, you are suddenly *very* obscured by
- the foam padding, much more so than the are in Il-2.
-
- Think about it.
-
- It seems to be that, rather than the bar is modeled
- to high, that the foam pad is modeled to low.
-
- Harry Voyager
-
Actually, the thickness of the bar, if it were represented in the game as it appears in the photo on the right, would not cut across the bottom portion of the reticle even in the higher view which appears on the left. And if you were to then lean foward and down, as a pilot would in aiming, it should become even less of a problem.



http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/rcafpost.jpg


Message Edited on 09/02/0307:51PM by Chadburn

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 01:44 AM
A fix would not require coding for refraction.

A fix would not require ANY change to the code at all.

A fix would have no impact to the framerate.

A fix would require changing the interior 3D models on all affected planes, no more and no less.

The comparison views shown above, as Harry pointed out the right side picture is from a higher angle than the left. And still the frame thickness is less.

The blockage is significant to those who do lead turns. You can get kills without doing your best lead turns but that doesn't prove there's no problem. It is a functional handicapping of ALL the most effective and only heavy fighter models in the German lineup. Even only one the P-47's have the gunsight blocked down the center (like THAT is how it appeared in reality!).

Head position is a good part of the problem but then head positions were selected with correct appearance of the 3D cockpits as foremost. If the position was not good to the perspectives of the dash, etc, then the position had to be moved. It has more to do with limits of the 3D rendering than to desires for correctness in a funny sort of way. The wrong head position to not have a distorted view is considered to be correct. In some planes this helps and in others it hurts. The FW is not the only one and the German planes are not the only ones hurt, some Russian planes do not do so well either.

Apparently eye candy is worth more than functionality.

Again --- there are no changes in the sim code needed at all. But then, perhaps having it all to be right is not worth the effort.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 01:55 AM
Remember also that the 190 flew "nose down" so you wouldn't be looking out parallel with a percieved line drawn from the cockpit bar/padding and the pilots eyes. I don't feel like repeating the quote from a book I am reading about the 190 but in short in mentioned how the sighting was altered because of the "nose down" attitude of the aircraft when flying, and also that the 190 had "excellent all-around vision, particularly over the nose which made the aircraft great for low-level flying and ground-strafing." These are the statements of an RAF pilot flying a captured A-3, and are a far cry from what we have in FB. It also mentions that the sighting view of the 190 is one degree (or half?) of deflection better than the Spitfire.

I think the picture shows clearly that the bar is too thick, and when you consider the "nose down" attitude that the 190 had (which seems like common knowledge now) when flying, the overall frontal view of the 190 is significantly hindered. Just my thoughts, I know it won't be changed and I'll say no more, but I just wanted to throw them out there.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

Message Edited on 09/03/0312:56AM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 02:02 AM
kyrule2 wrote:
- Remember also that the 190 flew "nose down" so you
- wouldn't be looking out parallel with a percieved
- line drawn from the cockpit bar/padding and the
- pilots eyes. I don't feel like repeating the quote
- from a book I am reading about the 190 but in short
- in mentioned how the sighting was altered because of
- the "nose down" attitude of the aircraft when
- flying, and also that the 190 had "excellent
- all-around vision, particularly over the nose which
- made the aircraft great for low-level flying and
- ground-strafing." These are the statements of an RAF
- pilot flying a captured A-3, and are a far cry from
- what we have in FB. It also mentions that the
- sighting view of the 190 is one degree (or half?) of
- deflection better than the Spitfire.
-
- I think the picture shows clearly that the bar is
- too thick, and when you consider the "nose down"
- attitude that the 190 had (which seems like common
- knowledge now) when flying, the overall frontal view
- of the 190 is significantly hindered. Just my
- thoughts, I know it won't be changed and I'll say no
- more, but I just wanted to throw them out there.

In order for it to fly "nose down", the engine and wings would have to be tilted to an upward angle. Otherwise the plane would dive, not fly level, if the nose was pointed down.

I'm not saying that isn't the case, just that it sounds strange. Do you have documentation to show that the engine and wings were set in such a way? Just curious.

The bit about good all around view is spot on. Too bad we don't have it ourselves.

One other thing though, it's more than just the bar at the bottom. Look at the pictures. The windows on the real thing are a good deal larger, and the struts are narrower. That plays a bit part as well.

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 02:35 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:

"One other thing though, it's more than just the bar
- at the bottom. Look at the pictures. The windows on
- the real thing are a good deal larger, and the
- struts are narrower. That plays a bit part as well."

Agree 100%.

As for the nose down thing I am going by pilot accounts. I'm sure someone else has a more techinical answer. Here is one quote though concerning the view and attitude.

"The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, is about half a ring of deflection better than that from the Spitfire.

The view downwards from the center of the sight graticule of the edge of the reflector plate holder is about 5 degrees. This view is not obtained by elevating the guns (and consequently the sight) relative to the line of flight, but is entirely due to the attitude of the aircraft in flight, which is nose down."




<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 03:11 AM
Unreal.

Clearly logic has gone out the window. This is a matter of personal pride for Mr. Maddox to the exclusion of facts. These pictures show you are wrong without doubt.

And all you need do to rectify the matter -- and, in so doing, engender enormous loyalty and respect from your customers -- is reduce the size of the bar under the REVI, yet because of arrogance and pride you refuse??

What a shame.

Guess we can only the next generation of sim developers learn from Oleg's mistakes and deliver what the flight sim community wants in terms of functionality instead of dubious "extra features and eye candy." From the 190 cockpit issue to the Jug's rollrate, 1Cs doctronnaire attitude really is a turn off.

And no I'm not being disrespectful -- not that it would matter one way or another -- I'm stating my opinion, which as a consumer of this product I'm more than entitled to do.

Oleg_Maddox wrote:
-
- quiet_man wrote:
---
--
-- I hope one day Oleg will do a corrected 190 cockpit
--
-
-
- No, we did it correct. And these photos just confirm
- it if you do not see it yet.
-
- As I posted before and now we don't plan to modify
- cockpit of FW-190 or any plane in a sim.
-
- Oleg Maddox
- 1C:Maddox Games
-

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 03:28 AM
Thankyou very much Peter for your time and effort in this project.

Much of this debate has been educational and most interesting to observe even from the side lines with out any input.

The many useless and snide remarks by many in an attempt to discredit or highjack the discusion were an annoiance,but you guys still through determination and stuborness to lie down on your convictions was impressive.

One thing I find hard to grasp in this is the possibility of the pilot bending his head down to line up a shot through his reve.
If this was the case even from the beginnig of the 190's beginning,would'nt LW pilots insist or recomend that the reve be raised to thier comfortable position and line of sight?
That split second movement of the head could make the difference.

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 04:06 AM
Could it be that the "nose down attitude", so often refered to, is the resulf of the image shift with refraction?

In other words, because the image of the entire nose of the aircraft would be shifted down (relative to the pilots line of sight), this may have given pilots the impression that the craft was flying with a nose down attitude.



Just a thought.


Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 04:20 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- You're love for "the great god of flight sims" seems
- to be a bit overmodeled there Ivan.
-

No, he just a human, i don`t worship Maddox, but in the same time i have outmost respect for him and what he`s doing, while quiet a few others don`t. Also i believe that some people around here should spend more time flying then fighting over some extra view IMO.

- Fennec is 100% correct. Oleg didn't say "we *think*
- it's correct and have no plans to change it", he
- ignored the issue forever, at most, telling everyone
- they *were* wrong and hs *was* right, then finally
- got into at least 1 (maybe 2) long drawn out
- debates, all with a hint of attitude as well.
-

Do you have kids DDT? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Would you like someone telling you that your baby is ugly? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Saying that he`s ignoring all this is just not fair. There was a big post by him with pictures vs screenshots and everything that comes with it. Lets at least not forget that he did take time to look and see and compare. So Maddox thinks he is right...and not once he said no, we are not changing it. So you think by insulting him some members of this community helped with anything?

- This is it. It's been proven. Oleg is wrong. It's
- right there in front of us all. Hell, even Milo and
- Isegrim are in agreement. That alone speaks volumes.
- lol
-
-

Did i ever said that he was right? I even mentioned 1" of blocked view mate, didn`t i /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif . My point was simple...when we want something bad enough...nothing will stop us and ppl seem to stump on anything...respect, good relationship...etc. That`s all i have to say about all this.





Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 04:34 AM
BTW, I wanted to thank CIRX for making this possible. The article/website is awesome for 190 fans like myself, lots of great pics/stories/info. I bookmarked the site so I can read it in it's entirety. They even used my sig of Trudgian's "Ice Warriors" in their links section. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I look forward to further updates/progess and I hope you can keep us informed if possible.

Oh, and I highly recommend everybody reading the article as it may answer some of the points being brought up here. The author clearly felt the 190 had one of the best views ever introduced in an aircraft and discusses it in great detail.

It also solidified the 190 as my favorite plane ever built, truly a work of art. The Tempest and Spitfire take a close second, with everything else being irrelevant.

Thanks.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

Message Edited on 09/03/03 03:43AM by kyrule2

Message Edited on 09/03/0303:45AM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 04:40 AM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- No, he just a human, i don`t worship Maddox, but in
- the same time i have outmost respect for him and
- what he`s doing, while quiet a few others don`t.
- Also i believe that some people around here should
- spend more time flying then fighting over some extra
- view IMO.

A human that some people seem to never want to admit makes mistakes or is wrong about things. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


- Do you have kids DDT? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Would you like someone telling
- you that your baby is ugly? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No, thank god. I value my time, freedom and money thanks. Besides, there are too many people here anyway.

But, let's say I did, and they did. It might be true. lol I do create things and get negative feedback on them. Not enjoyable, but, it happens. Such feedback is correct sometimes.

- Saying that he`s ignoring all this is just not fair.
- There was a big
- post by him with pictures vs screenshots and
- everything that comes with it. Lets at least not
- forget that he did take time to look and see and
- compare. So Maddox thinks he is right...and not once
- he said no, we are not changing it. So you think by
- insulting him some members of this community helped
- with anything?

I remember that. Its the one I referenced. He was wrong then too, but refused to let up.


- Did i ever said that he was right? I even mentioned
- 1" of blocked view mate, didn`t i /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif . My point was simple...when we
- want something bad enough...nothing will stop us and
- ppl seem to stump on anything...respect, good
- relationship...etc. That`s all i have to say about
- all this.

May have missed that 1" bit, may have forgotten it, but, it sure sounded like you were defending him. When we are saying he's incorrect, defending him is the same as saying he's right. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The bar is a minimal issue IMO. The smaller side struts and larger windows would be a great help.

It's an important issue though given the posturing he's done about accuracy. Well, this isn't accurate. He says it is. What does that say about other things he says are accurate?

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 05:05 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:

- crazyivan1970 wrote:
-- No, he just a human, i don`t worship Maddox, but in
-- the same time i have outmost respect for him and
-- what he`s doing, while quiet a few others don`t.
-- Also i believe that some people around here should
-- spend more time flying then fighting over some extra
-- view IMO.
-


- A human that some people seem to never want to admit
- makes mistakes or is wrong about things.


Well, that would be his right, wouldn`t it? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Besides saying never is not entirely correct either, because alot of things were changed after great input from some community members


-- Do you have kids DDT? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Would you like someone telling
-- you that your baby is ugly?


-
- No, thank god. I value my time, freedom and money
- thanks. Besides, there are too many people here
- anyway.
-
- But, let's say I did, and they did. It might be
- true. lol I do create things and get negative
- feedback on them. Not enjoyable, but, it happens.
- Such feedback is correct sometimes.
-

Does negative feedback includes insults? Or we still in the third grade?

-- Saying that he`s ignoring all this is just not fair.
-- There was a big
-- post by him with pictures vs screenshots and
-- everything that comes with it. Lets at least not
-- forget that he did take time to look and see and
-- compare. So Maddox thinks he is right...and not once
-- he said no, we are not changing it. So you think by
-- insulting him some members of this community helped
-- with anything?

-
- I remember that. Its the one I referenced. He was
- wrong then too, but refused to let up.
-

Was he wrong? Pictures that he presented and screenshots to compare were somewhat rather convincing...at least to me.

-- Did i ever said that he was right? I even mentioned
-- 1" of blocked view mate, didn`t i . My point was simple...when we
-- want something bad enough...nothing will stop us and
-- ppl seem to stump on anything...respect, good
-- relationship...etc. That`s all i have to say about
-- all this.
-
- May have missed that 1" bit, may have forgotten it,
- but, it sure sounded like you were defending him.
- When we are saying he's incorrect, defending him is
- the same as saying he's right. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-

Hell yeah i am defending him, and my reasons are pretty obvious, don`t you think? And as you can see i am defending him from such a treatment, no more then that. Everyone is entitled of opinion, he has his and you have yours...but unlike some people he does not insult
anyone...and even if he does...it just a luck of *english and was not meant as an insult...but he`s getting better.

- The bar is a minimal issue IMO. The smaller side
- struts and larger windows would be a great help.
-
- It's an important issue though given the posturing
- he's done about accuracy. Well, this isn't accurate.
- He says it is. What does that say about other things
- he says are accurate?
-
-

You want my honets opinion on this one bud? I don`t see anything out there that i can even get close to FB...and it will be a while before something like this appear. I play almost every night and enjoy every second of it...and to be honest with you...those extra pixels of available view in FW will not make me happier...and i will not lose my head over that. I stopped flying the darn thing after the patch...cause it`s overmodeled and kills don`t bring any satisfaction. By the way...do you know why it was overmodeled? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif ...Makes you wonder if he ever listen..doesn`it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

V!

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub



Message Edited on 09/03/0305:07AM by crazyivan1970

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 05:29 AM
Rules of the Real World

Much is written in official Luftwaffe documents about the proper position for a pilot in relation to the Revi16b gunsight. The 16b has a 0◦ angle of view, in other words the pilot aims from right behind it straight through. But, as with most things military, official doctrine only gets you so far, because it rarely takes the human being's own abilities into account. In aerial combat, the single most important thing is to see the enemy first, and secondly to be aware of the situation as it unfolds around you . Both these are related to vision, and the practical pilot would set himself up in the cockpit to achieve the best view. Below I took a photo of the position I would want to be in should I fly this plane somewhere, regardless off the gunsight requirements.


Ive flown many different types of planes and even taught in a few of them and I have never been in one where you could not clearly see the tip of the nose and it's cowling during flight. What these superb pictures clearly show as does the above explanation is that this was also the case in the FW (duh).Irrespective of the designer's stubbornness on this matter, FB does a great job at representing authentic looking cockpits but a rather average job at representing realistic views from these same cockpits with the FW being the best example of this.

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 05:34 AM
BTW the picture that clearly shows this is the one under the title "Rules of the Real World". Thank you CIRX for this great work.

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 05:41 AM
"Overmodeled" Oh *that's* richs. Yeah, ok. lol

It's the same old thing. He came out with something new, it was the best thing going, he said it was realistic, everyone beleived him. Instant "cult" (not meant to insult, just the most accurate term I can think of). A cult that was formed from the things mentioned, that it was new, and the best, but, it was enhanced by the fact that modern accounts of the war paint the Germans as the all time ultimate evil that has ever been or likely ever will be. Everyone loved the fact that the exotic rides were the best(in terms of in game competition) and that the worst planes were the German planes. Think about it, the largest percentage of this market group are followers of "the way" (sorry, almost can't help the sarcasm - but you knwo what I mean), and, those same people are at the very least _very_ pro-red, but often openly anti-LW. Nearly always the same arguments too, culminating in "who won the war again?", as if _that_ was an indication of equipment quality. lol

Anyway, challenge the reputation of impeccable accuracy, or even Olegs intent, and you are all but burned as a heretic. It's a response not unlike the villiagers getting their torches and pitchforks and formming a mideval posse.

Honestly, I think this really all goes back to modern schools. The history is taught with such a ridiculous spin that people just start to hate anything German and WWII (sometimes extending to WWI, ask most people who started the war, or who the "bad guys" were in that one).

Even logic doesn't dissuade the followers. For example - official line for IL2 out of the box "is accurate", the red-whiners "it's accurate, shut up you whiner" _then_ it get's patched, totally changed, and the exact same lines are repeated by both groups as if nothing ever happened. This repeated itself each and every patch.

Very few (hardly any) of the people who defend Oleg are actually interested in accuracy. They simply want to keep winning easy, keep believin' that LW planes were crap, and keep the LW down in this game. Not really anything else.

Further evidenced by the fact that the party line was "show us proof and we'll listen" (from the red-whiners), well, people started doing just that. Didn't change a damn thing from the followers.

Then we have the moderates. Not sure what they are after. Maybe just a personal need to keep the peace?



Anyway, the bottom line is this. All the threads I've followed here, with the input from people who know their physics, from those who know their hardware, from those who don't know much, from the followers, as well as the independent research I've done, and comments from Oleg indicate that he isn't interested in "realsim", he's interested in accurately re-creating the opinions presented in the soviet test data. And even then in an optimum fashion because he doesn't find ways to duplicate many of their worst weaknesses (such as, but not limited to, lack of radios).


Yes, it is the best thing going right now. But you know what? nVidia thought the same thing for a long time too. Look what happened.

"Best" is a comparitive term, it does not denote "good" (in the absolute sense).

So, let's make the best, better. If it means hammering on Oleg till he comes clean and makes changes (which seems to be the case), well, then so be it.


My question is, why do you care what others say about/to him? If you say you merely respect him, why bother to spend your time and energy to defend him. People are not altruistic. What's in it for you?


No offense is intended, it's late so my sense of humor might have already shut down for the night. Rather, I was just being sincere and as literal as I could be. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Hmm - forgot to add this, and forget where it should have gone - even if he won't correct it, just admit it, and state that inspite of it being wrong it won't be corected. Come clean about the intent, basically. A whole bunch of this stuff would stop then, because so much of it would no longer even have the hope of mattering.

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 05:55 AM
Maybe you guys should play a bit more online. FW190 is one of the best planes in the virtual sky currently. Good FW pilots don't have to expect too much competition from other planes. Maybe you should fly the sim a bit more instead of hanging around in 190 whining threads. You're missing all the fun http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



__
Sharx (Online; WUAF_Sharx)
<A HREF="http://www.il2skins.com" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.il2skins.com/images/banners/il2skins-468x60.jpg</A>



Message Edited on 09/03/0312:56AM by Sharx66

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 06:28 AM
Some of you guys will only see what you want to see. These pictures show the canopy bar extends up higher than the top surface of both the dashboard and the top of the cowling (excluding the breech bulges). But the real question is how much higher is the centre of the recticle on the revi from the bar, which these pictures don't show. The bar could be a foot thick or 1mm and the deflection view down will still be correct so long as the sight is the right height above the bar. If you go and look at Maddox's earlier reply

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

you can see how low the sight was.

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/190-2.jpg


On another note, I just can't understand the antagonism I see in this thread towards the fellow who gave you the best WWII flight sim around. What's that all about?

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 07:01 AM
People, please, let's stay on topic. Slamming each other or the developer brings us nowhere (actually, it brings us closer to the lock).

How 190, or any other plane performs in the sim, should have absolutely no impact on this forward view issue. Arguments like "...you already have a potent plane..." are in no way important to this thread and Cirx's study.

As for usefulness of the study, it has showed us that refraction indeed makes the bars look thinner. Not just bottom bar behind the Revi, but also side bars as well. And quite considerably. I really don't see a reason to deny it, or denying it should be modelled in the sim.

The bottom bar looks thinner. MG17 bulges can be seen behind it. One can only imagine than MG131 bulges would be even higher. In FB, however, the bar is much larger. MG17 bulges can't be seen behind it. MG 131 bulges are visible just as MG17 bulges should be.

Maybe it is time to fix it and put this issue to rest forever.

Interestingly, you can notice the refraction of the glass by comparing the beams of the roof of the museum. The glass effectively "lowers" them (sorry, for poor english).

http://www.triplane.net/images/Fw%20190%20102b.jpg


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

Message Edited on 09/03/0307:09AM by Hristos

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 07:17 AM
Sorry Hristos...didn`t mean to ... will not say another word /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I`ll PM you DDT, will contunue there /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 07:19 AM
I think you are missing the point that once light from the outside strikes the bars it can't be refracted or seen at all. Refraction is not going to give you more view than you would otherwise have.

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 07:26 AM
I realy Hope someone will get this Link to Oleg

Awsome Job here !!!!!!!

<center><FONT COLOR="black">ӚFJ-M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/i]</font>

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1062480429.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 07:36 AM
Why are the View Haters mucking up this post already???

Step off..... this is real info its undisputable Punks !!!

Let Oleg have a chance to review this and make a decision
without your hate posts

How come when you guys were rallying for more turnrate in P47 I didnt see any axis flyers over there flaming your technical postings & information.....

But I swear mention the FW and its view and provide real evidence & you punks are on it like salmanila on chicken

Get off our FW post this is a pure love post here we dont need your negative comments stop sending the negative waves!

<center><FONT COLOR="black">ӚFJ-M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/i]</font>

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1062480429.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 07:37 AM
I wish we could edit these posts. Disregard my remark about refraction. Having thought about it, I can see how refraction will lift light coming up at angle above the bar that might otherwise pass a little over the pilot's eyes. But surely the effect would surely be miniscule.

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 07:37 AM
I don't use the 190, so whether the game view is correct or not, and I have a sneaking feeling it is not, change it.
How is the view in games like EAW? Is it like this one?
Better? Worse?

I don't know. I was on a server last night, and most people were flying 190s. Maybe they were flying with no cockpit. But I heard no complaints.

Well, I did hear one. Something about the Hurricane being raped by the patch.

For the sake of peace, change it. If not, a better explaination than what was given is deserved. People paid good money for this. And they feel real passionate about it.
And went to great lengths to prove the view is wrong.

"We did it correct..." Just like the P-47 roll rate. Or the Noobicane. Or the 103% bug. Or the exploding P-40.


Yes. Respect the IL2 team. Respect the work. Everyone has either IL2, IL2FB, or both.(me). Some have bought more than 1 copy.

How about respect to those that paid for the game

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 07:43 AM
Iris47 wrote:
- I don't use the 190, so whether the game view is
- correct or not, and I have a sneaking feeling it is
- not, change it.
- How is the view in games like EAW? Is it like this
- one?
- Better? Worse?
-
- I don't know. I was on a server last night, and
- most people were flying 190s. Maybe they were flying
- with no cockpit. But I heard no complaints.
-
-
- Well, I did hear one. Something about the
- Hurricane being raped by the patch.
-
-
- For the sake of peace, change it. If not, a better
- explaination than what was given is deserved. People
- paid good money for this. And they feel real
- passionate about it.
-
- And went to great lengths to prove the view is
- wrong.
-
- "We did it correct..." Just like the P-47 roll
- rate. Or the Noobicane. Or the 103% bug. Or the
- exploding P-40.
-
-
-
- Yes. Respect the IL2 team. Respect the work.
- Everyone has either IL2, IL2FB, or both.(me). Some
- have bought more than 1 copy.
-
-
- How about respect to those that paid for the game
-
-
-
-
-
-

How about free support for over two years, new planes, objects...etc? How about you try to program something...jeezas.. Sorry Hristos...got away from me for a sec.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 08:06 AM
hi,
..new pics under open air(normal condition of light and refraction)) and in a horizontal position of the cockpit are in the pipeline.

I hope to get some other pics of a correct revi 16b view soon..
maybe the penny will drop to more ...

anyway: I guess there is more interest to accurate and advanced views in this sim by the users than with hindsight of the developer...

a curiosity.. ...

I'm looking forward to the new planes in addons and expect the next 'problems in discussion' with the developer....

A NO is defensive ...and to evade the issue.

really a big problem to some people....to learn from old mistakes...


we all make mistakes....errare humanum est



to Hristos: work with Photo Shop Pro ..zoom it...more gamma value etc..and post it again..some are blind here arround..
+ remember the tool 3DAnalyzer..



Hristos wrote:
- People, please, let's stay on topic. Slamming each
- other or the developer brings us nowhere (actually,
- it brings us closer to the lock).
-
- How 190, or any other plane performs in the sim,
- should have absolutely no impact on this forward
- view issue. Arguments like "...you already have a
- potent plane..." are in no way important to this
- thread and Cirx's study.
-
- As for usefulness of the study, it has showed us
- that refraction indeed makes the bars look thinner.
- Not just bottom bar behind the Revi, but also side
- bars as well. And quite considerably. I really don't
- see a reason to deny it, or denying it should be
- modelled in the sim.
-
- The bottom bar looks thinner. MG17 bulges can be
- seen behind it. One can only imagine than MG131
- bulges would be even higher. In FB, however, the bar
- is much larger. MG17 bulges can't be seen behind it.
- MG 131 bulges are visible just as MG17 bulges should
- be.
-
- Maybe it is time to fix it and put this issue to
- rest forever.
-
- Interestingly, you can notice the refraction of the
- glass by comparing the beams of the roof of the
- museum. The glass effectively "lowers" them (sorry,
- for poor english).
-
-

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 08:51 AM
hi,
sorry I made a mistake impromptu..


'anyway: I guess there is more interest to accurate
- and advanced views in this sim by the users than
- with hindsight of the developer... '

- a curiosity.. ... '

that's wrong..

It's not a 'curiosity' ... it's the consequence of a strong marketing strategy after a first success of IL2.....

cooperation with the users and self criticism will go more and more to the background....


some game companies try to learn from the product and marketing penetration methods of big brother in that field...

but..1C.M is not M$..

the future will show how long that work..

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 10:17 AM
cozmo_d wrote:
- Why are the View Haters mucking up this post
- already???
-
- Step off..... this is real info its undisputable
- Punks !!!
-
- Let Oleg have a chance to review this and make a
- decision
- without your hate posts
-
- How come when you guys were rallying for more
- turnrate in P47 I didnt see any axis flyers over
- there flaming your technical postings &
- information.....
-
- But I swear mention the FW and its view and provide
- real evidence & you punks are on it like salmanila
- on chicken
-
- Get off our FW post this is a pure love post here we
- dont need your negative comments stop sending the
- negative waves!

On page one Oleg already made a comment that no cockpits will be changed that are already in the game.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 10:27 AM
Hristos wrote:

- Interestingly, you can notice the refraction of the
- glass by comparing the beams of the roof of the
- museum. The glass effectively "lowers" them (sorry,
- for poor english).



Untrue, it lift them./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The line of view is lifted, if the glass is positioned in an angle like this.

http://mypage.bluewin.ch/a-z/kimura-hei/Bild2.jpg



"Kimura, tu as une tªte carrée comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif



Message Edited on 09/03/0310:35AM by KIMURA

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 10:32 AM
Nowi, Oleg has meanwhile made the statement I hoped he would made, and I appreciate this sincerely.

The reason why I'd asked for a new statement from him was that apparently, those pictures contained new information which could have invalidated the data Oleg seemed to have gone by so far.

Now, Oleg knows these matters better than I do and said the pictures don't change anything and do not contain new information, so I understand now that the FW view in FB is correct and will therefor not be changed.

I hadn't been sure of this anymore after having seen the pictures and having read the discussion regarding them.

Oleg, if you read this, thank you for giving us a statement regarding the pictures! Although I can't help but having the impression that the side struts are a tad wide in FB, and the strut at the bottom of the front window is located higher in FB than it is in those pictures.

Message Edited on 09/03/0310:19AM by AchimT

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 10:33 AM
kyrule2 wrote:
-
- As for the nose down thing I am going by pilot
- accounts. I'm sure someone else has a more
- techinical answer. Here is one quote though
- concerning the view and attitude.
-

the 190 is NOT FLYING nose down, the engine is mounted into direction of flight (with the usual +/-).

the 190 had an elevated cockpit, the engine cowling raises to the cockpit, so looking at the cowling the pilot is locking downward of flightpath, thats why pilots say "nose down"

it is not so strong for large MGs but very clear for the small MGs, the pilot can't see the cowling when aiming trough the gunsight (look how the MGs are installed in the cowling)

every photo that shows the cowling is made "nose down"



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
09-03-2003, 10:57 AM
KIMURA wrote:
- Hristos wrote:
-
-- Interestingly, you can notice the refraction of the
-- glass by comparing the beams of the roof of the
-- museum. The glass effectively "lowers" them (sorry,
-- for poor english).
-
-
-
- Untrue, it lift them./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The line of view is lifted, if
- the glass is positioned in an angle like this.
-

Untrue, it lowers them. What was higher seems lower. Just take a look at the picture.

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

Message Edited on 09/03/0311:35AM by Hristos

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 11:03 AM
I think the only thing that will happen is that the moderators will probably start locking all FW 190 threads again.
As Oleg said before FW 190 wont be revisited, still you can keep posting I suppose, even if you are only wasting your time.

S!

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 11:19 AM
how about we form a support group ?

...everybody.... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 11:21 AM
Not me /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

This is one of those things where I think FB didn't get it perfectly right, but is close enough for me to be happy with how it currently is /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 11:51 AM
KIMURA wrote:

-
- Untrue, it lift them.The line of view is lifted, if
- the glass is positioned in an angle like this.
-


Remember that drawing I posted in the other fw thread KIMURA?

Well I can't post it now, so bear with me. Copy that external line with the refraction and internal line still attached down to the external meeting place of the frame and glass. Notice where the internal line is now when it is inside the glass. Almost to the level of the instrument panel shroud.

Oleg/1C is mixing internal with external and not just on the Fw. A very simple, basic error has been done in the modelling that no draughman would ever make. >> There can only be one reference plane. << I say it again, that reference plane is the inner surface of the armour glass.




http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/taylor-greycap2.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 12:00 PM
hi,
yes ...that's the trend and the result when beside of a euphoric game community some users criticise a so called 'Sim-Guru' ,,...


however to continue to claim that the design of gunsight view of FW 190 + some more planes in FB is historically correct is pretty silly...

to all experts and many of us that are neither blind or brainwashed it looks obvious that the statement of the dveloper is more than 'wrong'...

time will come and some designers change this to better view...
remember all histories of WW II combatsims in the past..



Artic_Wulf wrote:
- I think the only thing that will happen is that the
- moderators will probably start locking all FW 190
- threads again.
- As Oleg said before FW 190 wont be revisited, still
- you can keep posting I suppose, even if you are only
- wasting your time.
-
- S!

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 12:21 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- For gunsight sighting line, refraction cannot be
- done as of now, but the frame can be. So again, what
- the pilot sees on the INNER SURFACE of the armour
- glass is what should be modelled and that means a
- thinner frame height.

I seize this opportunity to agree with Milo /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

From viewing the pictures I think the few is NOT right in FB. In the Cirx pics it seems the pilot has much better visibility than in FB. I'm not saying the 3D model is wrong, but that the view seems wrong. Since I fly the 190D since FB came out, I want the view to be correct, because I don't care about the 3D model. I just would like to see what the pilot in the plane saw.

On a side note I can't wait for the B17 and P51 to be able to simulate western front battles, where the D9 fits very well.

Nic



Message Edited on 09/03/0301:30PM by nicolas10

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 12:43 PM
crazyivan1970 wrote:

- No, he just a human, i don`t worship Maddox, but in
- the same time i have outmost respect for him and
- what he`s doing, while quiet a few others don`t.
- Also i believe that some people around here should
- spend more time flying then fighting over some extra
- view IMO.

I have a lot of respect for Oleg because of his wonderful work on Il2 and FB, which clearly made this game far superior to every competitor for a number of years. I think it's great that he involves himself in the flight sim community and listens to the comments of the simmers and actually tries to answer their demands in many cases. Also my respect even increased with the pics showing Oleg between those two sexy girls /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But I am still disappointed on the handling of this 190 cockpit issue. Even though it's possible that the 3D model is correct as Oleg says (doesn't look like it to me from the pics but who am I to know), it is pretty obvious from the pictures that the pilot view is wrong. I think the pilot's view is what people are interested in, and I think that's what is important to people flying the 190.

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 12:51 PM
jurinko wrote:
-http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/glass2.jpg

-
- what to add more? Who sees it, sees it.

Excellent illustration.

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg


Message Edited on 09/03/0302:45PM by nicolas10

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 01:18 PM
Those pictures clearly show, that the FB developers forgot to think about refraction, which was very important for the view out of the 190's cockpit !

- The normal view (not the gunsight view) should be higher.
- The frames of the armored glass should be a lot thinner, because of refraction.

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

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

Message Edited on 09/05/0305:09PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 03:59 PM
I fly pretty much exclusively the 190. While I like the performance corrections in the patch,I really think the windshield bar issue needs to be addressed.
I hope Oleg can see this as we have photo evidence from the real thing.
What I would'nt give to hear the sound of a real BMW 801.
Mind you I am kind of spoiled being near the Canadian Warplane Heritage I do get to see the Lanc flying pretty regularly.

Arte et Marte
Ordnancebob

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 05:20 PM
The fact of the matter is this:

Whether or not the 3d model of the FW190 cockpit is right, the pictures posted from a real A6 show that pilot visibility is far better than what is currently in FB.

Either some combination of angles, camera FOV, view height, etc, is coming into play.

I could care less about berating Oleg over the 3d model, all I'd like is for the FW-190 view to look the way it does in the shots from a real plane.

This is, again, another issue caused by Maddox games decision to disallow any 3rd party modifications to the game. If they'd followed the model used by .. just about any other game released since the original Quake in 1996 or so, we wouldn't be having this pinata session with the developer. Coz we'd be able to fix it ourselves. But we can't.

Simple questions to Oleg:

If the IL-2 model of the FW-190s cockpit is correct, why does it look so different to a real FW-190A6? Is it possible for you to render us a 3d image of the games FW-190 cockpit so that it does look like the photos Cirx posted?

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 08:17 PM
Maybe you should read back to page 1 or 2 of this thread for Olegs' reply. It might amaze you. It amazed me, or perhaps shock is the right word? I was certain that Oleg was more concerned with quality than this, only looking for and only seeing ways out. That is the way with business.

A sim has plusses and minusses, afterall. We just have to know and accept that then move on.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 09:10 PM
Yep that is a fact Max.

Atleast now we have really good pictures from inside the FW190 cockpit. I smell that they will help many future flight sim projects, and then mayby it will be 100% correct /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 09:44 PM
hi,
I guess..in this case.. O.M. has more friends in positive constructive criticism behimd him ..to more progress in his work...

hope he take notice of this,,,


alarmer wrote:
- Yep that is a fact Max.
-
- Atleast now we have really good pictures from inside
- the FW190 cockpit. I smell that they will help many
- future flight sim projects, and then mayby it will
- be 100% correct /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 01:50 AM
Michael_2 wrote:
- I think you are missing the point that once light
- from the outside strikes the bars it can't be
- refracted or seen at all. Refraction is not going to
- give you more view than you would otherwise have.

Your assumption is incorrect. The effect has been calculated ad nauseaum using appropriate drawings, angles, and snell's law. Search for the threads. It works out to something near one and a quarter to one and a half degrees depending on exactly what dimensions you use and what refractive index. Considering you have less than two and half degrees total downward view in the sim, the effect is large. What does it translate too? It means that in the sim you cannot see a target even with really modest deflection. You only get about 60% of the sighted deflection angle you should be able to get. Yes, it makes a difference.

Now you will probably go off on another couple of popular tangents for newbies to this theme (not a slam, just something I've seen many times so I'm anticipating a bit here.) To save some time: 1. It's simple to fix, you don't have to explicitly model refraction, just lower the bar. 2. It effects the 190 more than most others because of the angle and thickness of the glass. You can do calcs for other planes and other geometries and if you do you will find that the 190's design creates some peculiarities in this regard. In fact, it was designed with the refraction carefully taken into account. It's not that other planes couldn't also benefit from such consideration, it is that the effect in them is far smaller, and much less obvious than the 190.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 06:20 AM
I don't know why you would quote a post that I have already retracted. If you read the thread you will see I thought about through the retraction issue and agreed that it would give a little better view down and took back the statement you have repeated.

But I think it's reasonable for the developer to decide not to model refraction and also not to monkey with the geometry of the framing or gunsight/pilot position to achieve the same effect. All the planes are similarly affected, although perhaps a little moreso in the 190 as you point out. There are limits as to how much detail can be modelled.

When I look at the many pictures that are posted in the various threads on this topic, it seems obvious that the pilot in the 190 is seated, and the sight fixed, very low in relation to the top of the dashboard. The all round view and in front around the sides of the panel may be very good, but looking straight ahead, the pilot has a face full of dashboard.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 07:39 AM
Michael_2 wrote:

- But I think it's reasonable for the developer to
- decide not to model refraction and also not to
- monkey with the geometry of the framing or
- gunsight/pilot position to achieve the same effect.

Why? If the developer prides the cockpit views as being so accurate then why leave a glaring inaccuracy?

- All the planes are similarly affected, although
- perhaps a little moreso in the 190 as you point out.

Not a little but much more, very much more as a % of the view lost, as has been pointed out.

- There are limits as to how much detail can be
- modelled.

There is no extra detail involved. It's not like whether or not the fasteners are correct but about the POSITION of something that is already there.

- When I look at the many pictures that are posted in
- the various threads on this topic, it seems obvious
- that the pilot in the 190 is seated, and the sight
- fixed, very low in relation to the top of the
- dashboard. The all round view and in front around
- the sides of the panel may be very good, but looking
- straight ahead, the pilot has a face full of
- dashboard.

Seems.

Read the text on Cirx's site where the originals are posted. He sat inside the cockpit and then wrote of the view.

How many times do we see posts saying "it's only a couple of degrees", "so, what's an inch or so?", and the put-down adjectives slanted to make things look moot? You are just another.

On Cirx's site it's very easy to see that when you raise the view out the front enough to see the bar as high as in FB, you can plainly see the nose of the plane appear even higher. I sure don't get that in the sim. I can't figure out WTH Oleg was writing about but it sure ain't from any impartial checking, that's for sure.

Things like this, they lend creedence to many other doubts.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 08:24 AM
40% of the viewfield missing is indeed a lot. Is it really this much?

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 08:26 AM
In short:

Would it hurt O.M or the developers when they give in ?
Would it be too much work compared to the amount of work spent for bringing new planes ?

As we all know the answer is NO.

aaah. Imagine the amount of new costumers when all the so called whiners will yell "Buy more FB because all the cockpits rock !"

But now, all the whole issue produces is a group of frustrated customers that have taken any means (time and money for research) and given as much feedback as possible in order to make an excellent prduct even better.

If UBI would recognise how many customers back up the whole thing they maybe would react. If they already decided to include more western stuff in order to sell more copies why can't they correct the cockpits just for business reasons....

This issue is getting more and more frustrating...
So many other cockpits are wrong too but in favor of the players (La-7 anyone ?)and the only real bad cockpit wont be corrected, well maybe we should point out more often that the so-called community is disregarded to such extent..

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 08:31 AM
Cirx has certainly put a lot of his time and possibly money to get this study done. He sat in the cockpit, he played FB too. So, when he says the views do not match, I tend to believe him.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 09:17 AM
Maybe we should unite with the P-47 guys and start a Poll or something. If we can show how MANY players want it changed it would finally be seen as a financial reason to change...

How much more indications do you want to search ? I think there was done enough by the community. Cirx and all the other guys spent a lot of time on this. Lots of people have bought books (me too... 3 x Fw190 books, the cheapest 20,- euros..) and yet it's to no avail. Whatever good FB is (and it certainly is) the so called proof from Oleg is not statisfactory. Besides the TA-152 in his picture looks like rotting away in some long forgotten place...

So I think that all arguments ARE valid and we can't make them MORE valid.
We now could put the weight of the mass to produce results.
Maybe, some reports outside in other forums (simhq...)on how inaccurate and severe these issues are could help. Since right now two of the most known western planes are "spoiled" (P-47 and FW190) one could suggest this to be a rather serious issue for a flightsim which wants to depict the planes of WW2....

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 09:41 AM
hi,
it's recommendabel to move up the back of the plane to a horizontal position (remember the original pic in the O.M. thread) as the mechanics did prepare the convergence of the guns..including the revi hight..
In that position (+ outside of the hall/) ..you can take some more photos in a better way ... I asked Cirx to to this and maybe the manager of the museum will allow it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

But there is an other projekt of restoration and in near future I intend to take pics and videos including through a original windscreen and Revi 16b...

by the way: K-84 design... the view design will have the same problem as the FW.. with the lower frame being to tall !

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 09:57 AM
hmm, interesting idea about the poll....would you participate in it ?

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

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 10:30 AM
hi,
maybe a printable documentation.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

and a mechanical construction to take professional photos by different lens and hight...

as You know ..the camera view lens is very important to get exact photos compare to the view of a pilot !

That's also one of the points why O.M. argues always in his same manner...


Hristos wrote:
- hmm, interesting idea about the poll....would you
- participate in it ?
-
-

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 10:35 AM
Hristos wrote:
- hmm, interesting idea about the poll....would you
- participate in it ?
-

Yepp, I would ! I mean what will I lose ? Maybe a locked name from UBI. Geez, I can think of 100 Varaints of my Login name.

I mean: who can be offended by something like:
"The FB fans and community think FB to be nice but due to the great public demand we would like to have the following:

- "altered" or "enhanced" FW190 view **

- "altered" P47 *#*

**(let's not call it "corrected or realistic for the pure reason of omitting any insults. If oleg and developers think they're historically RIGHT let's leave it, then we are proud unrealistic ppl http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If you get what i mean...) This way he can change it without losing his face..

*#*(with all the inputs from the american-birdie boys.

I honestly think that Oleg and his crew did a fantastic overall job but honestly the customers PLAY this game. If the customers would play the game even more with such a small amount of work (heck even my girl is doing stuff in 3ds..) then it's piece of cake for a professional developer.
The whole further discussion is pointless. In the end it's OUR opinion (how many ppl read, agree but don't post) vs. Oleg and maybe some guys who don't wanna see a real FW190 ripping their plane apart.
We're after all not asking for a La-7-look-al-like-FW190. We just want some more pixels of view. For Gods sake, what's the Problem ?
I don't want (nobody wants, maybe some occasional post does..) to insult the crew. We just want to play this game but several so called "features" DAMPEN the joy of this product to such extent that ppl (to all these hardcore boys. I know you're flying it with this handicap anyway.) omit no less then 6 a-variants,2 d-variants and 1 F-variants which effectively steals to planes per War-period...

In the end it comes down to "money".The community is the money and if these guys don't want to hear us complaining in simhq forums, here or fangroups that the whole FW is not to our liking and a such leaves a big ugly stain on the shiny shirt of FB then this will certainly affect sales.

After all most ppl bought (and will buy) this sim for it's great ey-candy AND realism. Simmers are addicted to details and typically one small issue can spoil an entire product.
Plus, Simulations are long time products, requiring a lot of research and long time work. It's not like with FPS which are old by the time they're released. Still people interested in FLightsims buy this "old" game.. So money IS and WILL be an issue. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 11:41 AM
I still dont understand, not a single little bit, why people get so rilled up about a frame that might or might not be 10%, 20% to high.

The 190 is the total killer plane in this sim now. What does it matter?

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 11:57 AM
It doesn't matter whether it is, or it's not. This is NOT the issue here. The issue is "the cockpit isn't ok".
Whether you got the impression the pane rocks or not is another topic. We could discuss this in a topic like "FW190 now a killer plane ?".

So all we want is a different View and not something one could regard as "balance issue".

Don't mean to offend you, we'Re just asking for some more pixels to see and if you don't think it to be needed simply don't mess the topic up by mixing in "balance" stuff http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers, happy hunting

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 12:06 PM
More like 50% too high Nowi. The vertical FoV is reduced ~30mm in real life(you do the math for the restriction in FB) That represents a reduction in what can be seen over the nose, like for leading an EA.


It is a matter of priciple now, since Oleg "you is wrong" and he is too stubborn to admit it.

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg

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

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 12:25 PM
Nowi, their goal seems to be realism, not getting a more powerful plane. 40% off seems indeed a lot - if it's true.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 12:28 PM
IJG54_Nowi wrote:
-- The 190 is the total killer plane in this sim now.
- What does it matter?
-
-

also the P47 is a killer plane. and its roll rate still DOES matter.




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

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 12:44 PM
I dont think it is a matter of "realism". It seems to have become a matter of "proving Oleg wrong" or, like someone else said, on princible.

I really dont understand it. You are trying haaaard to make the dude look bad who gave us these two wonderfull flightsims in the firstplace. Is it really that necessary? Is it worth pißing off Oleg and making him come here even less than he does already?

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 12:53 PM
IJG54_Nowi wrote:
- I dont think it is a matter of "realism". It seems
- to have become a matter of "proving Oleg wrong" or,
- like someone else said, on princible.

You seem to underestimate people's enthusiasm to a certain plane, Fw 190 in this case. When I fly in FB, I fly in 190, not with Oleg. Thus, I'd like to have the correct view, thank you.


- I really dont understand it. You are trying haaaard
- to make the dude look bad who gave us these two
- wonderfull flightsims in the firstplace. Is it
- really that necessary? Is it worth pißing off Oleg
- and making him come here even less than he does
- already?
-


You see it that way. I don't.

I'd just like to have correct view in Fw 190. That's all. If current view wouldn't reduce the fighting potential of the plane, it would be a minor issue. But right now, it severely limits deflection shooting, both in vertical and horizontal directions, thus making the plane less effective than it should be.

As for Oleg, I am thankful for all he and his team has done. But ha makes mistakes, and this is one of them. And yes, he's a stubborn fellow.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 12:59 PM
hi,

don't mix it up..
the developer gets a lot of help and tips from many informed users in this case ...and some more ideas for better advanced pc-flightsim features in the future....


He should look forward to this .....


IJG54_Nowi wrote:

". It seems
- to have become a matter of "proving Oleg wrong" or,
- like someone else said, on princible.
-
- I really dont understand it. You are trying haaaard
- to make the dude look bad who gave us these two
- wonderfull flightsims in the firstplace. Is it
- really that necessary? Is it worth pißing off Oleg
- and making him come here even less than he does
- already?
-
-
-
-
-

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 01:05 PM
Hristos, my point above was that the 190 is so full of fighting abilitys now, it hardly suffers from a minor lack of vision.

But yes, if course there are honest people who simple want realism for the sake of realism - nothing wrong with that.

Problem I see is that for everyone of them, there are two who simple want to brush up their self esteem by attacking "alpha male" Oleg. If he would react to the change suggestions, he'd encourage all the honest realism people - but also encourage all those who have been hurling abuse at him for the past three months because they'd actually belive that they cussing and accusitions changed something. I suppose the later is not in his interest.

My main point remains - the plane flys damn well as is, and you can use all historical manouvers with it. It's by no means a bad representation of a 190 - perhabs it's actually too good a representation now.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 01:45 PM
This thread is about forward view study, and about forward view study only. Please don't come in with "too good already" or "too bad already arguments".

The current view is frustrating. Cirx took time and effort to make a study. He proved that FB representation isn't accurate. Nobody except Oleg even denies it - people see with their own eyes. Yet, the naysayers' greatest argument seem to be "...your plane is too good already ... everyone flies it ... you just want to attack Oleg...". Can you get better than that ?

These are facts, while you seem to be interested in motives much more, Nowi.

Oleg answered, but I don't think he is right. Most other posters in this thread think so too. Is it because they hate Oleg ? Is it because they want to attack him, for whatever reasons. Maybe a small minority, but that's it. Most just want the correct forward view in 190.

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



Message Edited on 09/04/0301:45PM by Hristos

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 02:59 PM
If anyone wants to see how a game can simulate what was described here:

http://www.triplane.net/190view.htm

"Once seated in the best position for view, you will probably be a bit higher than what is required for aiming. Aiming is then done by simply dropping your head a bit. The human's head is actually remarkably flexible in this way. Following the rules of perspective, these few inches can open up miles of sky to the view "

Then all one has to do is start up Forgotten Battles and take a look at the Cockpit in the ME-262.

It can be done, it can be done by Ubisoft/O.M., and it can be done with the idea that a pilot needs to see and therefore the pilot will take full advantage of the limits imposed by the cockpit/environment.

The point of this tread is that the current FW190 view is so constructed in the game as to impose an unrealistic handicap.

If there is any doubt as to the truth of this understanding then please fly the Me262 in the game, and use the Shift F1 command.

Then fly the FW190 in the gaem, and use the Shift F1 command.

Notice the difference.

Read the article in the linked post.

What Oleg Maddox does is his own decision.





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 08:47 PM
Nowi, plane rockz is most of the time due to pilots skills. Pre-patch, the FW was so hard to fly that the guys who kept on doing it eventually perfected in it. then, they learned to shoot when their target was invisible, but this did not come at once. what wouls happen if I want you to excell at hitting the bullseye of the target with a gun with huge recoil, etc, and then gave a super-balanced sniper and all that stuff. It would be very easy, wouldn`t it?



http://www.triplane.net/190view.htm


"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king."

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 07:43 PM
just A bump

http://www.triplane.net/190view.htm


"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king."

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 04:19 AM
I personally don't care what happens with the panel of the 190, because I don't fly it anyway. I'll be the one trying to vulch with a P11 or I-16. Inferior aircraft are my specialty!

As far as this panel issue, I think its simply a matter of the goal in mind. If we wish, as a flight "simming" group to develope a sim that is historically correct in every aspect, then the developer should take posts like this seriously and consider changes to get us ever closer to that "perfect" sim. If he only wishes to make another WWII sim with bits and pieces of historical realism plastered here and there throughout the game, then he'll throw out threads like this and do just what he did, state that he refuses to change it. I think if you are lucky enough to have clear, color photographs of a rare fighter plane and the ability to make a sim even closer to the real thing, the chance should be jumped on. If verifiable evidence is discovered that something in the game is inaccurate (let's not use the word "wrong") then he should simply thank that person or group of people and change it in the next patch. He needs to understand this isn't a personal attack on him or his developement team, just pointing out something to help everybody's flight simming experience be a bit more realistic.

Yes, FB is a fantastic game. The effort put into it to make it closer to the real thing than anything previously released is appreciated. If we've done this much, why not finalize this puppy and make it as real as humanly possible?

If your going to jump on the bull, why not try to ride it the full 8 seconds?

Something Oleg has to remember, we're paying the bills. If we, the purchasers, agree overwhelmingly that something in the game is inaccurate, he should fix it, or at the very least acknowledge that he was wrong. No, he doesn't have to, but I don't have to ever purchase another game from him either.

When push comes to shove, the person with the money has the push, and the one trying to sell a product simply has to tolerate getting shoved.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 08:05 AM
Oleg, fix 190 view or I get in my time machine, go back to right after Christmas, and tell my past self NOT to buy Forgotten Battles!

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 01:25 AM
A

...oh please...this has nothing to do with bashing Oleg / makink him look bad or something like that...this is about making a fantastic sim even better...

Regards, Sven

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 04:26 PM
I just wanted to tell the individual who worked on this study that I appreciate it. I have also sat in a FW 190 in Rio Hondo, TX and have pictures to prove it. The panel bar is incorrect and its a shame that the people running this show won't adjust it. There is more evidence suggesting a flaw here than is anything I have yet seen in this sim. Another aspect which I don't think has been addressed is that it is possible that the model that they used was not the standard version. I mean if the used one that had a high bar then I can understand the situation. However, it would seem to me to be easy to say that and then just fix the whole mess. Oh yea, for the people that don't think its a big deal, well that is probably because the aircraft is not your preference. If it was I bet your attitute might be a little different.

Swine out

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 10:13 AM
IV_JG51_Swine wrote:

"I just wanted to tell the individual who worked on this study that I appreciate it."

Thank you swine.

This is the first time I am posting about the study on this forum myself.They are amazing arent they?(To sit in)

I didnt originally do this as an IL2 fact finding mission.We are actually going to re-build the cockpit.The popularity of the pages surprised me a lot though...over 300 000 hits in week 1.And then I started getting feedback and letters and the research just became a pleasure.

But being an IL2 player myself, i did have the game in the back of my mind through the whole process. And yes, the cockpit and view in IL2 is inacurate. So I spent a little extra time documenting that, in the hope that it might help those in the know to improve matters. I was frankly shocked and disapointed at the reaction from 1C, and more so when further research brought up even more discrepancies. I went back to look at previous posts by 1C regarding this issue and was shocked to discover that the photos of the FW190 A8 posted was in fact of a semi-replica, and featured not only the wrong gunsight, but a host of other inaccuracies.

Apart from that it became clear that not only are the bars(struts) modeled inaccurately, but even the headrest.The pilots head positions are wrong, and should have been more like that in the ME262 (which I have also been in). The entire angle of the cockpit in relation to the plane is wrong,as is the flight attitude.The 3D model of the plane itself is also not ,well,among the best in the game.

And recently after researching the gunsight (we have to replace it) I have found that yes: Its wrong in many ways.

All this has made me realy worried about research covered in "non disclosure agreements" being bantered about.My experience so far with collectors and institutions is that they are only too happy to help...and get credit.

So after the initial reactions by the developers in various forums and interviews, I decided to give up on trying to help matters in IL2. Fortunately other developers and players have been more entusiastic. But today I still play IL2FB, it is still the best sim out there.And I will still make suggestions, (in fact I came here today to post in the "suggestions for future sims" thread.)

I have also commisioned a historical skin featuring our 190 for FB. Jerrykraut did the honours and I will post it in the next few days. Unfortunately it is an A5 skin, not the A6, and one cannot replicate its gun loadout in FB (outer 151's removed, 108 pods underneath), but it is still a thrill to take "Lulu" up for a spin!

Thank you to all who are helping in the research and with corrections in this project.The stuff coming out are mindblowing!

All the best
Pieter "Cirx" de Vries
http://www.triplane.net

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 12:32 PM
Great Work boy
Great pictures, great overall study, *bow in respect

sad reaction from developers.... But hey, I still can do a AMAZON-review on the game, so can others...

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 12:48 PM
bump

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 12:58 AM
Well, the lower bar is wrong, we should not see it when in the gunsight view...

Oleg,
YOU IS WRONG!

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 10:12 PM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



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

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 12:18 AM
Hi All

The 190 "Lulu" that is the subject of this discussion now has a skin available for IL2FB.

You can find it at

http://www.triplane.net/Simming/flight_simulation.htm

While the complete study so far is at

http://www.triplane.net/190/fw_190_a6.htm

Hope you enjoy it!
S!
Cirx

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 01:23 PM
bump

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 01:56 PM
bump too !

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 02:30 PM
bump /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 03:22 PM
Just to have an idea of the 190's correct forward view, these are some pics of how it is now and how it should be, due to the refraction effect of the canopy thick front glass.

sorry for the rough & rushed work /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://mysite.freeserve.com/maladoc/images/5-picture1.jpg

http://mysite.freeserve.com/maladoc/images/5-picture2.jpg

http://mysite.freeserve.com/maladoc/images/6-picture1.jpg

http://mysite.freeserve.com/maladoc/images/6-picture2.jpg

-----------

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 04:35 PM
bump /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 06:53 PM
bumb /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 04:44 AM
Bender999 wrote:
- Just to have an idea of the 190's correct forward
- view, these are some pics of how it is now and how
- it should be, due to the refraction effect of the
- canopy thick front glass.
-

Hi Bender! Would you mind if I put those pics up at the site 190 site's flightsim section sometime?Pls email me your details if you want me to link them. They are very cool.Only thing I can think of is that you would also just about see the tops of the 7.9mil MG bulges on either side.

PS.I also like to fly with the cockpit lights on. Last week we made an inspection of the 190's cockpit lighting system. It works with two (ultraviolet?) bulbs on eiter side of the instrument panel cover. It still looks workable although the bulbs have been removed. I would like to rig a system at some stage to relight them, especially bearing in mind planned future displays.

Hey, I also got some site-statistics back today!As you might know the rest of the site is still not up as I can only work on weekends, and I pulled it all to make a new start with the 190 thing, but in the last 3 weeks, since the study went up, the site has had a record 500 000 hits, and transmitted more than 17 GIGABYTES of data!

I had to redo the whole section cause the website started problems, and put it all in proper folders and order, as well as make the graphix sizes smaller, so old links might not work anymore, and the pics are smaller to load faster, but its all still there.

S!
Cirx
http://www.triplane.net

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 06:53 AM
Great news Cirx !

Nice that you have so much success with your project and it certainly shows that you get the honor you deserve. At least from us Wurgerwhiners... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

500.000 interested people (even if taking repetitions into account) is a lot !

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 11:32 AM
bump

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 03:24 PM
Cirx wrote:
-
- Hi Bender! Would you mind if I put those pics up at
- the site 190 site's flightsim section sometime?Pls
- email me your details if you want me to link them.
- They are very cool.Only thing I can think of is that
- you would also just about see the tops of the 7.9mil
- MG bulges on either side.


Hi Cirx,
yes you can use pics as you want /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
I can send them to you by mail, if you like.

In those pics I didn't care about the MG bulges, simply because I only repainted the bar of the canopy, just to give an idea of the refraction. If you see the pics in their original size, you can notice many brush-tracks /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

However, my pics aren't new. I only remake some pics that someone posted months ago (but he did a better work) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



S!

http://mysite.freeserve.com/maladoc/images/4-picture.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 03:39 PM
hi,
pilots view a bit higher...even the camera view in game..

but..but..?! remember the answer of O.M. in the thread of new addons and future sim...

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

this point has moved to a personal obstinetely manner ...and there is no serious hope of change in the near future...

I guess some more pics(by moving the plane in horizontal forward view position) and comments of FW 190 spezialists in some flight magazines could be more helpfull than only the same arguments in this forum and some others.....

some guys preparing news about several planes in this case...'Gunsight Views A Reality Check in WWII PC-Sims'..
...later on.. after LockOn is in the market ..a interest review of modern cockpit design view in combat jet pc-sims...

like the ' Reality Check' Review story at Simhq....

..thumb up or down in this case ..that's the point in publishing articles in different game and flight magazines to bring over this points to more interest people in the market....




Bender999 wrote:
- Just to have an idea of the 190's correct forward
- view, these are some pics of how it is now and how
- it should be, due to the refraction effect of the
- canopy thick front glass.
-
- sorry for the rough & rushed work /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- <img
- src="http://mysite.freeserve.com/maladoc/images/5-
- picture1.jpg">
-
- <img
- src="http://mysite.freeserve.com/maladoc/images/5-
- picture2.jpg">
-
- <img
- src="http://mysite.freeserve.com/maladoc/images/6-
- picture1.jpg">
-
- <img
- src="http://mysite.freeserve.com/maladoc/images/6-
- picture2.jpg">
-
------------
-
-

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 06:55 PM
I found the book of wich Oleg got his info for the Fw-190,
I was in the Aviation hobby shop here in Aalsmeer, The Netherlands and noticed this book,
Fw-190 im Detail written by J. Nissen

http://www.lhshop.nl/showpicture.asp?Artkode=9783613021983

you all remember the thread that Oleg started in which he explaned to us that he modeled the Fw forward view correctly? well, you'll find the same pictures in that book... but it describes pilots tails in which they claim the Forward view was EXCELLENT in there beloved Fw's

just wanted to share this whit you all

regards





http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/yunus%20sig.jpg


"I love the Butcherbird"

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 08:15 PM
In 1942 the British military had "acquired" a Fw 190A-3 when Oberluetnant Armin Faber landed his A-3 at Pembrey on 23 June. It was given the serial number of MP499 and evaluated by RAE. Following are some excerpts from the British test pilot's findings and subsequent report.

"The aircraft is pleasant to fly, all controls being extremely light and positive."
"Once airborne the pilot immediately feels at home in the aircraft."
"One excellent feature of this aircraft is that it is seldom necessary to re-trim under all conditions of flight."
"The aircraft is very pleasant for aerobatics, even at high speed."
"The all-around performance of the Fw 190 is good."

The Dive:
"The Fw 190 has a high rate of dive, the initial acceleration being excellent. The maximum speed so far obtained in a dive is 580 MPH True at 16,000 ft and at this speed the controls, although slightly heavier, are still remarkably light. One very good feature is that no alteration of trim from level flight is required either during the entry or during the pull-out. Due to the injection system it is possible to enter the dive by pushing the control column forward without the engine cutting. [Note: interrogation of Focke-Wulf personnel after the war revealed that the Fw 190 had been dived to Mach 0.80, a marked nose down trim change occurring at Mach 0.78 for which the variable incidence tailplane was extremely useful in assisting recovery.]

The View:
"The view for search from the Fw 190 is the best that has yet been seen by this Unit. The cockpit hood is of moulded Plexiglass and offers an unrestricted view all round."
Views while Flying Low:
"The good all-round view from the aircraft, particularly over the nose, makes the Fw 190 very suitable for low flying and ground strafing."
And on the Gun sight View:
"The sighting view is approximately half a ring better than that from the Spitfire. The all-round search view is the best that has been seen from any aircraft flown by this Unit."


These are but snippets of the report taken out of the book Combat Legend Focke-Wulf Fw 190 by Peter Caygill, Airlife Books. Much of this report reinforces and echos what the real life LW pilots have maintained of this plane. Yes it had its weaknesses, but they were heavily outweighed by its strengths.

I think that Oleg has produced the most realistic and wonderful WWII sim ever, and I applaud him for that. I, as do MANY, simply hope that the gun sight view and forward view of the Fw series is re-worked to exemplify what so many who actually flew the aircraft have reported over the years. I would be happy to shell out another $40.00 for just that alone in a future add on package to FB. I'm sure I'm not alone on this. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

With much respect, S! all!


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

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 09:41 PM
Just a few words about that book. The plane features in it, as well as in OM's posts on the subject, is a re-built A8.It lives at the Luftfahrtmuseum in Hannover.I have many photos of it.

A few important facts about it :

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

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

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

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

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

The shortage of pictures with correct gunsights are very simple to explain.The gunsight was the easiest and best thing to steal from a plane if your unit captured it. Very few examples remain where the sight, the mounting arm and the dashmount remains. Most exibits in museums are also best-gueses and mock ups, or just plain wrong due to the great number of 16b arms, mounts and rests.On my site there is a picture of a remade 190 panel where the mount is set so low that the bottom screw does not connect to the panel at all! When I asked why this obvious mistake was made I was told that this way the 16b lies flush with the dashboard, which looks nicer.In reality, when mounted correctly, the 16'b bottom is just about on line with the top of the radio-compass face.

Once you have the 16b's dimentions, and data on the relationship between the dashmounts's screw holes and the position of the sight-box, you can calculate the height quite easily. But no-one has bothered too much with this lately because no-one has had to borrow the Smithsonian's 190 to go and shoot down a Cessna!

Anyway, research is going great. This weekend I am visiting a sick Spitfire in hospital a few blocks from my house!

S!
Cirx

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 11:36 PM
bump

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 11:46 PM
Cirx, that report was made in 1942 after flying the above mentioned a/c during evaluation and not written after the war.

I'm not sure I'm following you, but are you saying that that captured A-3 was at some point after the war rebuilt as a supposed A-8 and that was the bird Oleg used as his source for making the cockpit? If so then it would be obvious to anyone that there would exist a big potential for technical screw-ups in representing an "authentic" cockpit.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 02:12 AM
Hi Dart

No, I was talking about "Fw-190 im Detail" written by J. Nissen, in the post by Janus, just above yours.The book is the sourse of the pictures OM posted in defence of the 190 forward view.

I know about your A3, I also read parts of that report, as well as that of many RAF,USAF, Luftwaffe, French and Argentinian test pilots. I also read thoughts on the 190 by SAAF (South Africa) pilots who flew captured 109's and 190s in North Africa in WW2. They all comment about the 190's excellent view, and a few goes so far as to put it above benchmark planes like the P51!

As for the A8, as you can see from above I was talking about a different post altogether. Whether OM based his 190 cockpit on this book alone I doubt. I think he had some other books too. But that mistakes were made are obvious. This weekend I start on general research refinement to aid in final plans and proposals, and in the course of that I will post at the site some very interesting photographs.

The position and functioning of the gunsight is at the moment the topic of research.I am in the next few weeks meeting with engineers from Eloptro, who make opticals for jet fighters, when they will explain the working of reflectors to me. Also folks at the Smithsonian institute are looking for information for me and collectors from the USA to Chech Republic are sending pictures and drawings. what I can tell you right now is that the sight in IL2 is a lot lower than it should be. The bottom of the sight's body should line up with the top of the radio compass faceplate. This is a huge mistake, even bigger than refraction. I will do a picture and post it this weekend too, to show the difference. There is only one 190 with the sight mounted correctly that I know of, and I now have pictures of it, and have asked for more. It is an A3 being rebuilt to flying condition at the Texas Air Museum( W/Nr5467). here is one such picture from a Japanese site :

http://www.warbirdsalive.com/wblist/german/fw190/fw190y9/cocpit_3.jpg



I have had to do a lot more footwork because our A6 is non-standard, but the results are very much worth it as you will see. The people I am meeting are also increddible. I have yet to come across any "non disclosure agreement" types. Everybody in this game shares the spirit. Anyway I am rambling on I have to go now. Good night!

S!
Cirx

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 03:43 AM
Bump! ;-)

http://www.luftwaffe3945.hpg.ig.com.br/aero/fw190-1.jpg


http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW/FW190-A3-7.jpg


Greetings, Sven

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:17 AM
Ah rgr Cirx. I failed to follow one of my own rules and READ the posts all the way through. LOL! Sorry. Also I just want to thank you very much for sharing your findings with us and this entire community. A hearty SALUTE to you sir~!
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 08:32 AM
For Gods sake how can they still insist their version of the "barred"-Cockpit is right ? After all that has been send as a proof.

BUMP !

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 08:53 AM
NT

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

Message Edited on 09/18/0312:53AM by IVJG51_Dart

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 11:58 AM
here are some pics from the Fw190 in Laatzen museeum, made by some squad comrades

http://wolf.equitatura.de//Bilder/190_****_3.jpg



http://wolf.equitatura.de//Bilder/190_****_4.jpg



http://wolf.equitatura.de//Bilder/190_****_1.jpg



/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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


Message Edited on 09/18/0311:00AM by JG53Frankyboy

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 12:23 PM
good pics. the negligibe bar should be completely obscured by the polyurethan ring i think.



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

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 07:29 PM
Yes, thats the same plane. See what I mean about the upholstery and the gunsight?The only thing you will see through that site is one big MG Bulge.It is not only the wrong site for the plane, but also fitted to the wrong arm, mounted on the wrong holder.It is a replica 190 with a couple of original parts.

As I wrote in the article, one cannot see the bar under normal circumstances.If you raise your head then you will see first the bulges (in the case of lite mg A6's) and then the nose and then more of the nose and then the bar. In the case of later kites than the A6, they had the bigger bulges for bigger guns so you would have to cram your entire face in sideways between the dashboard and the windscreen to be able to alow it to obstruct your view. That is why the picture of the TA152 posted by OM (with the green lines) was so misleading. If the outside was not blackened, the engine would have covered the bottom half of the view, thereby refuting the 190's view in IL2.

Interesting thing : On one photo is a part of the yellow "1" visible, and if you look inside it on the right, there is a small round seam in the metal surface. This is the release button for the footladder you need to get onto the wing! These planes are sooo cool!

S!
Cirx

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 02:24 AM
DEN NOMIZO OTI SE AKOUNE RE FILE

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK MAN

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:23 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- In order for it to fly "nose down", the engine and
- wings would have to be tilted to an upward angle.
- Otherwise the plane would dive, not fly level, if
- the nose was pointed down.
-

Not true. Fly a taylorcraft. The cowling (if you have the 125 hp engine) totally blocks your view while taxing but while in flight you have a nose down view, that is your nose looks like it is pointed towards the ground-- but your aircraft is perfectly trimmed and not gaining/losing altitude.

Your pilot's head position has alot to do with your "nose down field of view".

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:45 AM
the topic that would not die...I gotta admire your persistence./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:42 PM
Would you surrender and admit defaet although you know you'Re right and it's injustice ?


BUMP !

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 04:21 PM
As promised the site got a facelift and a lot of new content. All photos have been replaced with almost 2x higher resolution galeries and there are more of those than before.

I have also a new research section up with almost 20M worth of material so far. I have used some pictures from this thread and others and would appreciate if the authors contacted me for accreditation.

The flightsim section has also been redone and rewritten.

There are still a few typos in text arount the site but I will sort that out in time.

http://www.triplane.net

S!
Cirx

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:48 PM
Keep up the fantastic work Cirx! Really enjoying seeing all this info come to light. Thank you!

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

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:07 PM
Its Amazing how you guys never give up, even though Oleg has already stated nothing will ever change.
These FW 190 threads should win some type of Award for the biggest waste of space and time ever, in any Forum.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:09 PM
I like the threads about the 190 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ...

It's an outstanding research, cirx /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif !

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:47 PM
Artic_Wulf wrote:
- Its Amazing how you guys never give up, even though
- Oleg has already stated nothing will ever change.
- These FW 190 threads should win some type of Award
- for the biggest waste of space and time ever, in any
- Forum.
-
-

Yes that is sad,but this is of interest for all aspects of the 190, which has many fans (almost 500000 hits by week 4).

And other developers also read these forums. Where was OM prior to IL2? I seem to recal in other flightsim forums.

Yes.

There ARE other developers.And sadly (for us IL2 fans) 1C's actions is allowing them to live.

I still live in hope though.One always has too.

Peace!

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


Message Edited on 09/22/0312:36AM by Cirx

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:21 AM
Like I've said before in other threads with regards to the whole Fw 190 gun sight and other views. I'd gladly shell out another $40 for a patch that FIXED the views, etc. No kidding.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:25 AM
Yepp I'd pay for it, too /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 01:51 PM
I already did.. lol but I'd do it again.

Why can't he simply say "ok I don't like the stuff you've shown but due to the high demand, marketing chose to ask for it so we can please MORE customers" and to soften it up "We have a different set of planes here so maybe our studies deviate".

Hey no offense.
To the development team: DO IT FOR THE MONEY !


But the again, we all can do a quick review on amazon, can't we ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:53 PM
Here is a review :

http://www.triplane.net/Simming/sim190.htm

I'd be happy to change it if the situation improves. if anyone disagrees with statements in it, prove me wrong.

S!



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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 07:18 PM
Great work, Circx, thanks for these very good pics /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:27 PM
Circx, I have just located a photo on page 26 of the Squadron/Signal publications Walk Around Focke-Wulf 190 A/F which shows a front view of a Revi 16 in place with the entire site system ABOVE the front panel bar area. This book contains photos of your 190 in South Africa as well as the 190s in Rio Hondo, Texas. Like I said previously, I sat in the 190 in Texas but unfortunately it had the Revi removed. However, this photo is from that actual bird with the Revi 16 in place and CLEARLY shows that the Revi 16 is not obstucted in any way from the panel bar. I was wondering if you have this book? If you do not I will try scan the photo and post it. It really caught my attention since I haven't seen this photo posted previously anywhere. If someone has shown it then please post it again.



Message Edited on 09/22/03 08:29PM by IV_JG51_Swine

Message Edited on 09/22/0308:31PM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 11:02 PM
Hey Swine. No,I have not seen it yet and if you can scan it I would be very gratefull.

And about the Texas 190 : I have some sweets for you : I have pictures of it with the sight replaced ! Dont know if its the same one,there are several 190's in Taxas and more than one Texas Air Museum, but here ya go :

http://www.triplane.net/research/190pits.htm

Also check out the "Revi" section here under gunsights :

http://www.triplane.net/research/research1.htm

And to see what the view in FB should look like go here :

http://www.triplane.net/Simming/sim190.htm

I have also gotten in touch with Mark Timken from the TAM and White 1 project and we are planning ways to help each other with recearch and information. He has a contact at the Smithsonian who specializes in Radar and perhaps we can get more info in the Neptun-Liliput and Elfin systems that are giving me such a headache. This is great news for me.

I highly recommend visiting their site at

http://www.white1foundation.org/

It is very informative. They also have skins for IL2FB to download there featuring 190f8 W1, and they are looking for help as well.

Back to your book. Being in South Africa puts some unique difficulties in the buying of books that are not main stream. If there are any revealing pictures as far as panels,dials and general cockpit layout is concerned, please post them or send them to me at 190@triplane.net

If you feel it is a book worth having, please send its title,publisher and publisher info to me so I can order it.

Thanks for the pic in advance, I cannot wait!

S!
Cirx




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

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 01:29 AM
Cirx, I will get that photo scanned for you. I have a bunch of photos from the 190s in Texas. Actually one is from the museum in San Antonio and the other in Rio Hondo. I will get them together and email them to you. Fortunately, I am close to the A-7 model flown by Rudy Linz(aircraft #732183). Feel free to post them if you would like. I think we need to get together on this stuff since I do have pretty good access to an A-7 in great condition. I am emailing you some photos.




Message Edited on 09/23/0312:33AM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:53 AM
Go Boys ! Go !!!

Great Job !

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 10:45 AM
Thank you Cirx and others for everything you've done so far. Keep up the good work.

There are people who are interested in stuff you are doing.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 11:34 AM
Dev team; Why dont you fix this already and make a bunch of happy fans? w t f is wrong with you?

-pozzu

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 01:08 PM
Let's keep this on top. Very interesting stuff.

Nic

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 01:27 PM
As Oleg was in the Forums just minutes ago maybe he had seen that here !

BUMP !



Message Edited on 09/23/0301:28PM by JaBo_HH--Gotcha

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 07:26 PM
I don't fly the FW 190 cause of that bar, I have trouble deflection shooting because of it. Even loaded up with two MK 108 wing cannons and such I am still a deadlier shot with a Bf 109 F2 with a single 15mm cannon and two rifle calibre MG's than with a fully loaded FW 190.

I am not a psychic I don't know what the enemy aircraft is doing when I take a lead in a turn to shoot him, he could have turned in the other direction by the time I pull the trigger and he is under the bar somewhere.

Why do people complain about us complaining, it's so obviously modelled wrong!

I think they should add lines of black paint to the Lavochkin 7 and Yakovlev 3 windscreens to make it harder for the pilot to see. OK it isn't historically accurate but it will stop them from shooting me down online! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:08 PM
Perhaps these two fotos from my page will be at help:

http://users.ntua.gr/pkar/Kurt%20Tank.jpg


This is Kurt Tank, aircraft designer and pilot,designer of the FW190 in the cockpit

http://users.ntua.gr/pkar/FW%20pilot.jpg


..and this is a poor pilots head cramped in a FW190's cockpit

Cheers

http://www.loggia.com/myth/images/medusa02.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 01:13 PM
nt = No Text

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

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 01:21 PM
Medusa_the_dark wrote:
- Perhaps these two fotos from my page will be at
- help:
-

Hi Mudunsa. I am looking at your site now. The other pictures are also stunning.Where did you get them?

The second picture you posted is one that has been posted here before.I have taken similar angled shots of the 190. The problem is that it is an A2 or A3, not available in FB (you can tell this from the Revi 12 sight used) and also that the algle does not correspond to the gunsight view. It is also clearly a posed picture, and although it is very nice, tells nothing of value to forward view questions.
An extreme example would be if I photographed you looking through a spyglass (is this the word for those little lenses you put in a door to see who is outside?) from the outside of a door. I would see NOTHING of your face, what does that tell me about what you can see?

See the problem?

But thanx non the less, I am downloading all pictures from your page now!

All the best
Cirx



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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 01:27 PM
Unforunately OM is as stubborn as a mule when it comes to the Fw's forward view. The pilot did not see a great BIG bar in front of him in real life.

If the refraction for the gunsight line of sight is not modelled, then the reference plane is the inside of the armour glass. That means the frame should be VERY narrow.

But,/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif maybe that is a good thing he does not correct the view, for we might get the original Fw FM from Il-2 back./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


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



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

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 01:28 PM
hi,
..fine work..
by the way...remember to ask..possible to take pics out of a horizontal position of the plane's cockpit (move up the back)..forward.right,left...with different lens 35 and more ..?

Cirx wrote:
- nt = No Text
- <img
- src="http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.
- JPG">


remember this pic:

http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A4-48s.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 01:48 PM
I wonder if any of these FW190's still have their guns.
If the guns and or cannons are still present and have not had their mounts adjusted or dicked with ,it should be possible to insert laser boresight in them. Knowing what range the LW set their guns to converge at it should be possible to make a target test board with would show where the crosshairs of the Revi would be.
Measuring the height of the guns above the floor and seting the board at the appropriate height could also answer the question of the FW's flight attitude. Yes the nose will raise with slower speed and flaps but we know the cruise speed of these planes and its reasonable to assume the guns are set to converge at as speed the aircraft is more likely to enter combat at.
The above boresighting is not much different then that which Armies do to boresight small arms as well as Artillery etc.

Arte et Marte
Ordnancebob

Arte et Marte
Ordnancebob

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 02:18 PM
for the A-8

Sighting line intersecting points(side view)

MG131(crosses sight line twice)
30m, 400m

MG151/20 (outboard)
120m, 550m

MG151/20 (inboard0
135m, 550m


Crossover point(top view)

MG131
parallel

MG151/20 (outboard)
400m

MG151/20 (inboard0
600m


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



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

Message Edited on 09/24/0309:19AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 06:07 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- for the A-8
-
- Sighting line intersecting points(side view)
-
- MG131(crosses sight line twice)
- 30m, 400m
-
- MG151/20 (outboard)
- 120m, 550m
-
- MG151/20 (inboard0
- 135m, 550m
-
-
- Crossover point(top view)
-
- MG131
- parallel
-
- MG151/20 (outboard)
- 400m
-
- MG151/20 (inboard0
- 600m


Hi Milo

Could you explain this a bit to me, because I am daft.Please explain "sighting line intersection points" and "crossover points" so I can understand what you mean.I might know,but please remember english is not my first langauge.(not second or third either lol)

Perhaps a drawing might help.

S!
Cirx


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

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 07:07 PM
Hi there Cirx.I got some books about WWII , FW and TA 152.The "page" was made just for the cause,I will add some more pics scanned for that purpose.Trying to research the matter of FW's view. For now, I use the normal view when I fly and at the first stage of an engagement.I swich to target view (crosshair) just before I shoot, it reduses the problem

Cheers

http://www.loggia.com/myth/images/medusa02.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 07:22 PM
Cirx wrote:
-
-
- Could you explain this a bit to me, because I am
- daft.Please explain "sighting line intersection
- points" and "crossover points" so I can understand
- what you mean.I might know,but please remember
- english is not my first langauge.(not second or
- third either lol)
-
- Perhaps a drawing might help.
-
-

I can send you a scan, if you want.

In the mean time, the sight line projected from the center of the reflector crosshair image. The bullets left the muzzle rising through the 'sighting line', rising more and then falling back through the 'sighting line' again. Think 'profile' or 'side' view.

'Crossover' is seen in the 'plan' or 'top' view. The point on the center line where the bullets from each side crossover to the opposite side from which they were fired from.

Does this help some?


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



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

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 07:28 PM
Cirx,

(crosses sight line twice)

Any weapon that is sighting must account for trajectory drop. At first the bullet goes up through the sight line and then drops into the sight line down range.

This is very noticable with a gun like the AR15 (M-16) which has a sight that is raised considerably over the barrel. In order to hit things that are very close (in the order of a few meters) the shooter must aim high. At some point as the shooter moves away from the target (5 meters or so) the sight lines up with the bullet trajectory and then the shooter aims at the target to hit the target. Then as the shooter moves even further back away from the target the bullet is over the line of sight and the shooter must aim low to hit the target. Not until the range is where the sights have been "sighted in" can the shooter once again aim at the target to hit the target. When the target is further away the shooter then aims high to hit the target.





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 07:51 PM
ordnancebob wrote:
- I wonder if any of these FW190's still have their
- guns.
- If the guns and or cannons are still present and
- have not had their mounts adjusted or dicked with
- ,it should be possible to insert laser boresight in
- them. Knowing what range the LW set their guns to
- converge at it should be possible to make a target
- test board with would show where the crosshairs of
- the Revi would be.
- Measuring the height of the guns above the floor
- and seting the board at the appropriate height could
- also answer the question of the FW's flight
- attitude. Yes the nose will raise with slower speed
- and flaps but we know the cruise speed of these
- planes and its reasonable to assume the guns are set
- to converge at as speed the aircraft is more likely
- to enter combat at.
-
- The above boresighting is not much different then
- that which Armies do to boresight small arms as well
- as Artillery etc.
-
-
- Arte et Marte
- Ordnancebob
-
- Arte et Marte
- Ordnancebob

here it is

for A-7 to A-9

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/aviation/ww2/germany/fw190/armament/fw190a8-weapons-chart-1.jpg


http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/aviation/ww2/germany/fw190/armament/fw190a8-weapons-chart-2.jpg


for /R1

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/aviation/ww2/germany/fw190/armament/fw190a8r1-weapons-chart-1.jpg


for /R2

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/aviation/ww2/germany/fw190/armament/fw190a8r2-weapons-chart-1.jpg


http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/aviation/ww2/germany/fw190/armament/fw190a8r2-weapons-chart-2.jpg


Butch

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 11:07 PM
Butch : Wow!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Josf and Milo, thanx, I understand. I know this (I was sharpshooter in the army) but I thought you might be talking about something weird. The crossover is also the convergence right? And this could be adjusted some yes?

Anyway, thanx guys but for the purpouse of this reconstruction, we will not need to set the sights up so accurately because we dont plan to shoot down any cessnas just yet.

What I am interested in is the true height of the gunsight and it's box in relation to the panel, and I now know this answer after talking to some specialists from the states.

And once you have that the rest remains academic, although interesting. What matters for this discussion about the view in FB is not so much the bullet trajectories (that is another fight for another time?) but the modeling of the canopy frame and the height of the gunsight. In FB both are quite wrong so far, and this negatively affects enjoyment of the plane in the game (In my case at least, when flying Axis I avoid the 190 completely)

S!





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

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 11:44 PM
Another photo, that shows, that the ReVi was installed a bit higher than in FB /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif :

http://www.pilotenbunker.de/Jagdflieger/Luftwaffe/Barkhorn_Gerhard/bark4.jpg




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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 01:20 AM
Cirx

That posted by Butch is what I would have sent to you. Thanks Butch./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

What height do you have for the cockpit floor to the centre of the relector glass? I have it as 830mm.

Love your website./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The Tank a/c are my number 1 a/c love. Well besides the F4U and Tempest./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Jets, the SAAB Viggen./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


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



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

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 01:32 AM
Cirx and all!

You know, after Oleg said he would not change, I stopped reading the 190 view posts. I really shouldnt have. I doubt it will change things, but I have learned so much about the airplane from this thread. The pictures have all been wonderful, and the research outstanding.

I really doubt Oleg had the resources to do all this for the view of one plane in this game, and thus, that is why it suffered. I can understand that for sure.

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 03:33 AM
Atzebrueck wrote:
- Another photo, that shows, that the ReVi was
- installed a bit higher than in FB

Thats Gerhard Barkhorn (301 victories) with what seems to be his tradmark snarl/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Het Milo, where did you get that 830mm figure from? I would be very interested, as we arrived at the gunsight height in a different way. We identified the mount used by the plane from the screw-holes in the upper instrument panel. We then identified the mount arm used and of course the 16B. Then tracked a colector to give us photos and measurements, and worked it out from there.

To see how that corrsponds I would have to go back and measure from the floor. I might be going next week, or else next month.

BTW, that phot of Barkhorn plus many others that have been posted here are up in the research section of the website here :

http://www.triplane.net/research/research1.htm

Please check it out is is a must for any 190 fan even it it is mostly graphics.There are also cockpit shots with correctly installed revis there as well as explanations of other proof-pictures submitted by game developers.

S!
Cirx



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

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 06:36 AM
So, in the end, we have opinions of developers who have seen Fw 190 cockpit only in photos, against people who actually sat in the cockpit.

Should be easy to decide who to trust.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 07:42 AM
@Hristos: It always was. It was abvious from the start that a plane that was regarded as one of the best A/C of WW2 couldn't be THAT flawed.
I guess they (developers)had no time to do the research and only had one old battered, bad-treaten, captured TA-152 as real reference.

However, there's NOTHING at all stopping them altering this obvious situation (<- See ! I don't call it error, bug or whatever. It's highly diplomatic...) in order to the the customers liking.
Changing the 3d model is a short job. As they do weekly updates of several cockpits (for the add-on...).

But, hey if their marketing-department doesn't see that 500.000 hits on a research site and many more thousand hits on such threads actually MEAN a thing, added to the fact that the so called "opposition" (all the guys that formerly said that the FW was correct, erm, right) is next to absent in these threads this will sooner or later affect their reputation, already the tension here is mounting. VOW and SIMHQ forums have similar stuff. Sad...to say the least.....

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 08:03 AM
hi to all,
re to 'Fehler'

..the fact: O.M. and his team are not interest and unwilling to change the FW-View design also in a next futur addons/sim..
(see this thread....I wonder about this point...
It's time to force more information to all forums in the web which talk about 'real things' in WWII combat PC-flight sims...

-
http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zupis&tpage=5&direction=0

Oleg_Maddox wrote:
- Even in the next sim FW-190 cockpit will looks the
- same. Just more precise will be small details. Be
- sure. Even if you will not buy due to this reason
- our new sim it will be like it should and is in FB.
-
- IV_JG51_Swine wrote:
-- Please fix the FW 190 cockpit and take the grease
-- off of the 109 cockpit glass. Thats all I would ask
-- for.
--
-- Thanks
-- IVJG51_Swine
--

- Oleg Maddox
- 1C:Maddox Games



in general: a serious developer of WWII combatsim should look more to the real restorations.. what ever plane he wants to design......
..problems in detail view can't recognize always in blue prints by transforming to 3DMax including the problems of 3D design to desktop view...



Fehler wrote:
- Cirx and all!
-
- You know, after Oleg said he would not change, I
- stopped reading the 190 view posts. I really
- shouldnt have. I doubt it will change things, but I
- have learned so much about the airplane from this
- thread. The pictures have all been wonderful, and
- the research outstanding.
-
- I really doubt Oleg had the resources to do all this
- for the view of one plane in this game, and thus,
- that is why it suffered. I can understand that for
- sure.
-
-
-
-
-

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 04:37 PM
Cirx wrote:
-
-
- Het Milo, where did you get that 830mm figure from?
- I would be very interested, as we arrived at the
- gunsight height in a different way. We identified
- the mount used by the plane from the screw-holes in
- the upper instrument panel. We then identified the
- mount arm used and of course the 16B. Then tracked a
- colector to give us photos and measurements, and
- worked it out from there.
-
-

Cirx, from the Bentley drawings. There has been many posts with this drawing included. Check in the old Fw190 view thread.

If you want the originals (1/24 scale, cost 14Pounds**) you can order them from this web site under the heading 'Modelling - Aircraft'. http://www.nexusonline.com/pages/nexusdirect.cgi

** - don't know how make the 'funny' L for English money./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



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



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

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 10:22 PM
I have the photos Circx..I emailed them to you.


Message Edited on 09/25/0309:23PM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 11:10 PM
Got your reply Cirx, thks

Message Edited on 09/25/0311:10PM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 11:13 PM
disreg


Message Edited on 09/25/0310:19PM by IV_JG51_Swine

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 12:02 AM
Hi Swine I got them and posted them on the site (under research/gunsights) I also answered your new thread where you posted the same.

S!
Cirx

PS Milo thanx for the link!

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

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 05:08 PM
Fantastic work Cirx; I envy you because of your position, but I also think you´re doing fantastic work with the plane and I know it´s in good hands. Getting that bar removed for this or the next sim would be great and this bit is a bit depressing:

Oleg_Maddox wrote:
- Even in the next sim FW-190 cockpit will looks the
- same.

However, I wonder if anyone noticed what this also means: there will be a flyable FW190 in the next sim. That´s of course nice, pacific is pretty much ruled out, though.

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 07:18 PM
- No, we did it correct. And these photos just confirm
- it if you do not see it yet.
-
- As I posted before and now we don't plan to modify
- cockpit of FW-190 or any plane in a sim.
-
- Oleg Maddox
- 1C:Maddox Games



No you didnt do it correct, also stop using FM for allied planes from Rogue squadron because la7, yaks and p39 are from WW2 not galaxies far far away, sad but true.

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 10:49 PM
Oleg did do the fw190 cockpit correct. It's refraction that's not modeled in the fw190. This probably hurts the 190 more than any other plane cause it was obviously desgined allowing for this refraction.

If oleg's next sim has the exact same fw190 cockpit, but the game engine does refraction then the view should be vastly improved in the fw and other planes also.

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 11:21 PM
I hate this 'refraction' crutch so often repeated.

If the forward view had been modelled correctly in the first place as to what the pilot saw on the inner surface of the armour glass there would have been no 'discussions' of the Fw's forward view problems.

As it is now the Fw is double castrated, loosing ~60mm of its vertical FoV(real). That 30mm lost by that humungous frame just 'kills' any chance an doing accurate deflection shooting.

This basic modelling error by 1C/Maddox is for all a/c but effects the Fw the most.


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



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

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 11:34 PM
Like I said before it might be the team´s ambition to accuracy that caused the error. They made a very accurate model (as far as I know) from the blueprints but didn´t get the all-important pilot view correct because not all things show on paper. A less meticulous approach would´ve just had them look at a few pics from the cockpit and make the cockpit based on them. Ironically that probably would´ve made the actual view more realistic.

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 11:44 PM
Andy, a compentant draughtman would have seen the error right away.


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



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

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 12:02 AM
Perhaps, especially since that bar blocking the sight should´ve immediately raised suspicions about the model´s correctness. However, if I for example would make a 3d model of the 190 I would build it according to the plans just like the modeler from maddox games did (I think). Then I would insert the glass and let the software work out refraction for me. That way the model would be absolutely correct from every angle and I think this is the standard procedure when creating 3d models. The problem is that this approach won´t work in a game for years to come and that´s why MG should´ve (IMRO) modeled ALL the cockpits to LOOK correct from the pilot´s view. That´s the only view that matters anyway.

Maybe they didn´t think of this at first or maybe they chose to ignore any refraction issues and just model the cockpits in the usual way; like what they would´ve looked without the armor glass installed. I think this way is simply wrong (although understandable) and every cockpit in the game should be re-evaluated. It´s going to be a lot of work but we´re not talking about a minor issue here. Of course some planes aren´t really affected much, but that only makes things worse because it creates unfair disadvatage to certain plane types.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 12:35 AM
I agree. refraction is not something you "model", it is something you incorporate into the view. So you dont need a supercomputer to calculate refraction for oyu, all you need it to draw it into the existing cockpit.No extra computing power nessecary.

This affects many planes in the game, but the 190 is the only one I wont fly because of it.It is the worse affected of all.

This is also compounded by the fact that the sight is not mounted correctly and the algle of the cockpit in relation to the plane seems wrong. If the sight was the right height it would clear the bar anyway, and if the angle was correct of the cockpit, then lowering the bar would not expose the gun bulges.

Anyway. Last night I started a new campaign flying this time for the red side. The 190's forward view is the least of this game's problems.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 12:37 AM
Cirx check your PM.




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



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

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 01:25 AM
Sry Milo, had it turned off after this thread started due to spamming from nuts. Checked it now and replied.

S!

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

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 11:42 AM
could this refraction be modelled to La series planes right now?
i remember that someone made calculations about head position in cockpit, and it seemed that pilot eye height in cockpit was quite high, it also explains good visibility from cockpit over the engine hood.
it just popped on my mind.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 11:52 AM
Maybe it is, I´m not sure but it´s certainly possible. La panes should benefit a lot if refraction was modeled. I saw a 1:4 scale model of La5FN and the effect was clearly visble even in that small plane. Maybe this should be calculated again? Might be interesting to compare and if this has already been done in the game there´s a lot more reason to have it in FW and other planes as well.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 12:20 PM
I don´t know about head position but I just quickly tried out the La5 and to me it doesn´t look like refracion itself was properly modeled.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 05:52 PM
well, not refraction itself modelled, only the pilot FOV is raised enough to make it like refraction.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 06:12 PM
Refraction is something that need to be calculated or approximated, usualy you use texture displacement but in case of a FS it's not possible to use that technique.
Moreover adjusting Pov is not possible either as it is not a proper way to model refraction, which i remind you is not the same in front and lateral panel.


Butch

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 06:32 PM
Yes but refraction can be pre-calculated meaning there is NO burden to the system in game. It´s not impossibly difficult, since the player isn´t moving in relation to the cockpit (not much). Just like we have an approximation of real life physics in the flight model we can have an approximation of how the cockpit looks like from pilot´s point of view if refraction is taken into account. Actually we SHOULD have that. Refraction usually improves visibility, which is already a problem when using a monitor for viewing. Any realistic means to improve visibility should absolutely be used even if it isn´t something as critical as refraction. Comparing a relatively notable effort such as modifying the cockpits to the monumental effort of producing a flight simulator makes the former a cost-effective solution for improving teh game.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 07:19 PM
Cirx wrote:
- I agree. refraction is not something you "model", it
- is something you incorporate into the view. So you
- dont need a supercomputer to calculate refraction
- for oyu, all you need it to draw it into the
- existing cockpit.No extra computing power nessecary.

EXACTALLY!!

- This affects many planes in the game, but the 190 is
- the only one I wont fly because of it.It is the
- worse affected of all.

Agreed! Off topic, something else that is not MODELED or PRE-CALCULATED or TAKEN INTO COSIDERATION is the way the cockpit canopy *struts* *frame* *bars* what ever you want to call them. Basically the should appear semi transparent for TWO reasons.. ONE we have two eyes, this enables you to see around (behind) objets like *frames*.. TWO in real life one could move his head (ie LEAN) a little L or R, Up or Dwn, to increase that effect... we can NOT move our heads in IL2 (or any other sim that I know of). All in all those *TWO* things hurt the view from the early P47s much more than the refation of the Fw190. Both suck and should be *ADDRESSED* imho!

- This is also compounded by the fact that the sight
- is not mounted correctly and the algle of the
- cockpit in relation to the plane seems wrong. If the
- sight was the right height it would clear the bar
- anyway, and if the angle was correct of the cockpit,
- then lowering the bar would not expose the gun
- bulges.

Ok.

- Anyway. Last night I started a new campaign flying
- this time for the red side. The 190's forward view
- is the least of this game's problems.

LOL! Yup.. it is a GREAT sim!! But it has alot of problems!!



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 09/27/0311:22AM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 09:37 PM
Humm i think that you do not realize the burden of a vertex bound refraction modeling. Keep in mind that this is not supported by let's say OpenGL. I haven't worked on rev 2.0 but 1.2 does not support this natively.

I would be curious to know how you intend to apply a transformation matrix restricted to a certain part of the FoV which actually change the PoV for that part of the FoV !!! That's exactly what the mirror do ! There are currently no other way in OGl or Dx to do that until they decide on supporting it natively and major card maker design their chips for it.

Modelling refraction which is not based on texture tricks is bound to cause a major slowdown, any OGL programmer will tell you this.
To sum up you have to calculate the view for each refraction value you have, Meaning a minimum of twice the current work.

Butch

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 09:56 PM
butch2k wrote:
- Humm i think that you do not realize the burden of a
- vertex bound refraction modeling. Keep in mind that
- this is not supported by let's say OpenGL. I haven't
- worked on rev 2.0 but 1.2 does not support this
- natively.
-
- I would be curious to know how you intend to apply a
- transformation matrix restricted to a certain part
- of the FoV which actually change the PoV for that
- part of the FoV !!! That's exactly what the mirror
- do ! There are currently no other way in OGl or Dx
- to do that until they decide on supporting it
- natively and major card maker design their chips for
- it.
-
- Modelling refraction which is not based on texture
- tricks is bound to cause a major slowdown, any OGL
- programmer will tell you this.
- To sum up you have to calculate the view for each
- refraction value you have, Meaning a minimum of
- twice the current work.

Many sims in the past have *addressed* the refraction by simply ADJ the cockpit layout to account for the shift refraction would have. That is to say you dont have to calculate refraction in real time, simply shift the whole view from the cockpit by the PRE-CALCULATE amount. If that means you might see a little more in other views that you normally wouldnt, that is fine. Because the forward view is what counts in a combat flight sim! If it means the layout is not 100% correct.. I dont give a rip! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Because the forward view is what counts in a combat flight sim.

On that note, and with regards to the transpaent thing I pointed out. A sim by the name of EAW did handled it by first making the forward bar in the P47 very VERY thin.. But in later versions went as far as to REMOVE it completly.. Why? because that was the work around to account for FACT that the hardware was not up to the task of modeling the two eye effect in REAL TIME. Thus they PRE-CALCULATED that the bar would not be that notiable, thus they ADJ the cockpit and REMOVED IT!

That *is* the GIVE and TAKE of SIMULATING REAL LIFE! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 11:43 PM
Like tagert said, there´s no need for real time calculations. Refraction can be modeled by making the struts thinner and using other tricks to make the view look almost like it would with refraction. The important thing is to get the forward view correct in the way that the pilot has about as much visibility as he would in a real plane.

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 04:58 AM
Milo, explain how building a cockpit's 3d model off exact blueprints is an error,

The refraction could have been taken into consideration, but techinally that would mean making the cockpit incorrect without refraction.

I wish Oleg had decided to make the cockpit slightly wrong to simulate the real view. This is the solution most people are asking for that Oleg refuses.

If refraction is modeled some day, that exact same cockpit seen through that same glass will have a smaller horizontal bar and a better view down the nose.

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 05:12 AM
God I'd love to have that vertical bar reduced or removed in my Jug.

Then again, I'd love to have even the regularly seen 72" Jugs used in the field. Let alone the 75" that the P&W was capable of withstanding for *hours* with high octane fuel.


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 07:29 AM
The proof is more then enough. The thing is the bar is there to cover up the nose model if its not there you will see inside the nose of the 190. Seems thats what 1c is avoiding it.


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 09:40 AM
What sucks is that your supposed to only look thru reticule with your right eye but FB shifts screen to center it on the reticule.This warps the 190 view pretty bad and so I fly with gunsight off till last minute and then pop in to it to keep better situational awareness.

What I was hoping for was a way to use the cockpit without putting it in gunsight mode and still get the crosshair centered in reticule.But after thinking about this youll see that then the bullets would have to fire sideways towards the right to match up.What I was wondering is would people here object to the next sim with new German cockpits to have the reticules centered in screen.This would mean moving some of the instrumenst around though and the realism buffs might object.I vote that they should and this would aleviate the akward feeling you get in the Fw's and also the 262"S.

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 11:44 AM
Yes the cockpit would be technically incorrect in some ways from other points of view, but the important thing is that you never get to see it from those angles. The only view that matters is the one from inside the cockpit and that view would be more realistic with refraction taken into account. Right now we´re flying without any windows and that´s not the way the planes flew back then.

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 12:51 PM
bull s h i t ..cant you nerds understand that this is a game not a Traning program for flying,,

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 02:22 PM
BigganD wrote:
- bull s h i t ..cant you nerds understand that
- this is a game not a Traning program for flying,,
-
-

Did you miss what OM said? So OM is a 'nerd' for saying his sim is used for RL training. OK/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Due to the sheitty 'search' function Ubi has, no link can be provided.

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



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

Message Edited on 09/28/0309:25AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 06:47 AM
No I havent read it..and I wont.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 06:57 AM
Well you should watch your tongue, then./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


BigganD wrote:
- No I havent read it..and I wont.
-
-



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



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

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 07:11 AM
Just FYI, I PMed Oleg about Fw 190 forward view poll results after the poll was over.

He replied to me, promising the photos from Flugwerk company of their restored Fw 190 as the final proof. However, to this day, I haven't recieved these photos. Please note this is not a slam against Oleg or development team, just an information on how things are happening in the background.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 07:15 AM
interesting issue.

As a sidenote: the same guy (oleg) is posting in threads saying things like "you need more proof ?" and then seems to offer none...



B U M P !

Stay on this Hristos !

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 08:27 AM
As to the refraction issue. I think it's fairly well understood that the home PC doesn't have enough computing power to run such a complicated process as figuring out refraction in real time while flying a sim. That said, it's a fairly simple work around, and while not "perfect" would go a long way in "simulating" the forward views and gun sight view of the Fw. That work around? Simply put, re-draw the canopy struts and the view through the gun sight to more accurately represent, simulate, what it would be like to actually sit in the Fw and fight another a/c. That is what the bird was built for, and one cannot actually think that the real pilots had to contend with the bottom portion of their gun sights being blocked and preventing gun solutions from being made. Ludicrous at best.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 05:09 PM
Well MiloMorai I dont have a tongue..

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 05:14 PM
BigganD wrote:
- Well MiloMorai I dont have a tongue..
-
-

Your lacking something else as well./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


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



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

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 05:16 PM
I should watch my fingers? :O

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 05:48 PM
OK, guys, let's stop this. Ignore him and he will go away.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 05:52 PM
We can only hope so./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Hristos wrote:
- OK, guys, let's stop this. Ignore him and he will
- go away.
-
-

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



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

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 06:20 PM
Hi Milo, sry I have been busy a bit, but I posted your pictures on this page that I thought most relevant :

http://www.triplane.net/Simming/compare.htm

You can remotelink from there if you wish.

The other pic you sent me is up in the gunsights page of the 190 study.

All the best
S!
Cirx

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

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 06:26 PM
Sry Milo, just got your PM

Ill post them here they are, discuss away!


http://www.triplane.net/Simming/simmages/milo/a-La5-Fw-gsv.jpg


http://www.triplane.net/Simming/simmages/milo/a-Fw-dwg.jpg


S!
Cirx

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

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 08:50 PM
Great work........Salute!

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 02:44 AM
Hey, how about Shummi winning at Indianapolis!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I never expected it, I am so happy!

I thought we could all celebrate with this :

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


Go Shummi Go!!
S!
Cirx

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

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 04:38 AM
http://www.formula1.com/

It is hard to believe the career of Micheal Shumacher.


The man must have made a deal with the devil.



JG14_Josf

ZG77_Nagual
09-30-2003, 05:00 AM
Cirx - that's a ta152 ain't it?

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

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:59 AM
No, that is an A-3. It was the one that was captured and studied extensively by the RAE in 1942 and given the serial # of MP499.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 06:03 AM
I believe that is a REVI 12 gunsight as well if I'm not mistaken.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 07:04 AM
IV_JG51_Swine wrote:
- I believe that is a REVI 12 gunsight as well if I'm
- not mistaken.
-
-

Yup, the captured A-3 had a Revi 12 in it.

--AKD

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