PDA

View Full Version : 190 gunsight view fixed, sortoff



MiloMorai
01-06-2004, 07:08 PM
And it was said the gunsight view could not be fixed. Well all on has to do look at these pics of the Ta152, which has the same physical cockpit shape as the 190, to see that it could be corrected.

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=006545

Only problem is that it is only in the 152.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Even the Spitfire has had the lower frame removed somewhat from impeding the pilot's gunsight view. And some said this was not possible either.

MiloMorai
01-06-2004, 07:08 PM
And it was said the gunsight view could not be fixed. Well all on has to do look at these pics of the Ta152, which has the same physical cockpit shape as the 190, to see that it could be corrected.

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=006545

Only problem is that it is only in the 152.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Even the Spitfire has had the lower frame removed somewhat from impeding the pilot's gunsight view. And some said this was not possible either.

VW-IceFire
01-06-2004, 07:22 PM
Maybe the refraction argument had an effect. Who knows. OR...the Ta-152 actually did have a gunsight placed higher. Thats a possibility I suppose. Someone who knows the indepth details of the Ta-152 may know that answer.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

DangerForward
01-06-2004, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Maybe the refraction argument had an effect. Who knows. OR...the Ta-152 actually did have a gunsight placed higher. Thats a possibility I suppose. Someone who knows the indepth details of the Ta-152 may know that answer.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I remember Oleg said the TA152 used a "simpler" version of the Revi, and that is why it is different.

DangerForward

TX-Zen
01-06-2004, 08:04 PM
I'm not too impressed with the struts, they look awfully big...but the view down either side of the nose is awesome and...and...and dare I say it....there is no bar in the Revi?????


Whoaaaaaaaaa!


FYI The bar at the bottom of the Revi did not appear in the pilots field of view due to refraction which was apparently the intent of the designers. There have been some great threads and real life research done on the refraction issue which the FW in game did not get the benefit of. I'm no optics expert, but it seems likely that refraction did prevent the bar from being seen and therefore was not a factor in lead shooting.


TX-Zen
Black 6
TX-Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM Only)
TX-OC3 Server 209.163.147.67:21000
http://www.txsquadron.com/library/20031218144359_Zensig2.jpg (http://www.txsquadron.com)

Jazz-Man
01-06-2004, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
And it was said the gunsight view could not be fixed. Well all on has to do look at these pics of the Ta152, which has the same physical cockpit shape as the 190, to see that it could be corrected.

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=006545

Only problem is that it is only in the 152.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Even the Spitfire has had the lower frame removed somewhat from impeding the pilot's gunsight view. And some said this was not possible either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire strut was lowered because IN FACT, proven, without the refraction argument at all, it was set far higher in the original render then even the Blueprint showed. Refraction had nothing to do with the decision.

Oleg has already stated that he would not accept a cockpit model that was not 100% accurate to the original blueprint. The Spitfire MkV cockpit, to my knowledge, is in that process right now.

Next you'll start off on some grand conspiracy theory....

I have to agree with Gibbage, and his comments on the Netwings forum. I have yet to have seen a definitive photograph that proves that the armored bar did not exist, and did not obstruct view. On the other hand, if you go look, there is a photograph of a Spitfire, with original mounted gunsight, taken from the exact location of the pilots head on the Netwings forum, showing precisely what the pilot could and could not see.

In all the b!tching about the FW, why does no one mention the fact that the Mig and LA-7 both suffer from the EXACT same problem that the FW does.

That just wouldn't be right, after all, its a big red conspiracy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

S!
William "Jazz-Man" Katz
Squadron Batman
RAF No.74 Squadron
http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/images/signature.jpg

ElAurens
01-06-2004, 08:42 PM
Hehe, I never complain about the Mig3U sight, I just get on with it...

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

LeadSpitter_
01-06-2004, 09:10 PM
thats the kind of posts that should be here instead of on simhq

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

BS87
01-06-2004, 09:11 PM
I have honestly *never* had a problem with the 190 sight. it is prefectly fine to me. If i cant see what i'm firing at, i rollt he plane a little bit. Even if it is wrong, i adapt.

TX-Zen
01-06-2004, 10:09 PM
I can't say that it's 100% wrong for sure in the FW, but there is a good bit of evidence suggesting the bar was not visible.

Is it a Red conspiracy?
Is it unplayable as currently modelled?

No to both.

But is it right?

Not sure.



There doesn't have to be some evil plot for it to be wrong btw...the FW was regarded by it's pilots and a good deal of documentation from it's day to have extremely good forward visibility and the ability to make high deflection rear quarter shots...it clearly doesn't in the game.

At the end of the day you still get kills, you still can be successful in the plane and as BS87 said you simply adapt to the view as is.

In my opinion it's most likely not correct, I wish it was better, but everything in the sim can't be perfect so I'll take what I have and run with it, as I've been doing for some time now.

TX-Zen
Black 6
TX-Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM Only)
TX-OC3 Server 209.163.147.67:21000
http://www.txsquadron.com/library/20031218144359_Zensig2.jpg (http://www.txsquadron.com)

Jazz-Man
01-07-2004, 12:00 AM
You're right that refraction is the reason that the bar was not visible to the pilot in the real FW, Tex, but Oleg has said he won't model artificial refraction into the cockpit models in FB.

However, the accusation was that the Spitfire was modified for the sim based on refraction data, which is inaccurate. The bar was in fact mounted too high on the glass in the model.

S!
William "Jazz-Man" Katz
Squadron Batman
RAF No.74 Squadron
http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/images/signature.jpg

Steven190
01-07-2004, 07:41 AM
TX
you are right, it needs fixing, the bar is in the way. The TA had the same cockpit as the A and D and the same Revi 16b sight.I think that the Revi 16b was the standard sight late war, just due to what was avaible. As stated in a few books, TA 152 by Dietmar Harmann, that the equipment was taken for the A-9 airframe. Unfortunatly most resources do not mention the sight, just weapons.
The addon Firepower had the same sight picture as FB, and changed it after doing some research as to what the sight picture is.

JG14_Josf
01-07-2004, 08:42 AM
What is wrong with the LA7 and Mig3 view?