PDA

View Full Version : FW190-A4 Revi view is 2.38 degrees down only.



XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:19 PM
This is determined without any supposing at all. It is found out using only IL2/FB graphics yet without resorting to pixels or any esoteric sleight of hand.

Straightforward:

A) Line up behind a friendly FW190-A4 at 200m and see the wings fill the ring. The wingspan of the A4 is 10.52m according to the object viewer. I assume there is no mistake there.

B) 10m wide at 200m away is an angle of 2.86 degrees.

C) The ring itself has a crosshair marked, 3 segments for one radius of the ring. The radius is 1.43 degrees. At 2 decimal places that is accurate.

D) Each segment is 1.43 degrees / 3.

E) From the bottom edge of the ring to the bar is 2 segments. Total segments from center of revi crosshairs down to the bar is 5.

F) 1.43 degrees * 5 / 3 = 2.38 degrees.

G) Downward view through the revi is about 2.38 degrees and NOT 3 degrees or 4 degrees as we have been told.

There are NO tricks here. Everything is from the sim itself and anyone can find this out with just a little trigonometry of the high school level.

Tangent of 1/2 the view angle is 1/2 width of the circle divided by range to that width. 5m/200m = 0.025. Tangent of 1.43 degrees = 0.025. View angle from crosshairs center to edge of ring is 1.43 degrees. There is no trick.

*** FW says 3 degrees is visible. The difference may only be .62 degrees but that .62 is over 20% of those 3 degrees. From Oleg says 4 degrees is visible the % less is much higher.

Check the numbers, check the view, and ... Be Sure!


Neal

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:19 PM
This is determined without any supposing at all. It is found out using only IL2/FB graphics yet without resorting to pixels or any esoteric sleight of hand.

Straightforward:

A) Line up behind a friendly FW190-A4 at 200m and see the wings fill the ring. The wingspan of the A4 is 10.52m according to the object viewer. I assume there is no mistake there.

B) 10m wide at 200m away is an angle of 2.86 degrees.

C) The ring itself has a crosshair marked, 3 segments for one radius of the ring. The radius is 1.43 degrees. At 2 decimal places that is accurate.

D) Each segment is 1.43 degrees / 3.

E) From the bottom edge of the ring to the bar is 2 segments. Total segments from center of revi crosshairs down to the bar is 5.

F) 1.43 degrees * 5 / 3 = 2.38 degrees.

G) Downward view through the revi is about 2.38 degrees and NOT 3 degrees or 4 degrees as we have been told.

There are NO tricks here. Everything is from the sim itself and anyone can find this out with just a little trigonometry of the high school level.

Tangent of 1/2 the view angle is 1/2 width of the circle divided by range to that width. 5m/200m = 0.025. Tangent of 1.43 degrees = 0.025. View angle from crosshairs center to edge of ring is 1.43 degrees. There is no trick.

*** FW says 3 degrees is visible. The difference may only be .62 degrees but that .62 is over 20% of those 3 degrees. From Oleg says 4 degrees is visible the % less is much higher.

Check the numbers, check the view, and ... Be Sure!


Neal

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:27 PM
D.(luft) T.2190 A-8 says 3 degrees

.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:06 PM
It would be if the bar was not blocking the view.

So much for accuracy.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:13 PM
almost the same I got already in the big thread and another one that got locked (like this one /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif - IBTL)

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvsld&tpage=10&direction=0


<hr>

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

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

&lt;script>var specwin=window;function openspecs(){specwin=window.open("http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/specs.htm", "specs", "hotkeys=0,width=640,height=480,left=64,top=64,scro llbars=yes");}</script>Die olle Rechenkiste vom noch olleren Willey (java_script: openspecs[))

<font face="Comic Sans MS" size="2">Seit &lt;script>var eventdate=new Date("March 20, 2003 00:00:00 GMT");d=new Date();count=Math.floor((eventdate.getTime()-d.getTime())/1000);count=Math.floor(count/(60*60*-24));document.write(count);</script> Tagen<sup>*</sup> gibts Il-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
BTW: In &lt;script>var eventdate=new Date("June 21, 2003 00:00:00 GMT");d=new Date();count=Math.floor((eventdate.getTime()-d.getTime())/1000);count=Math.floor(count/(60*60*24));document.write(count);</script> Tag(en) gibt's das n√¬§chste Development Update von Oleg Maddox, wenn alles schiefl√¬§uft /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<font size="1"><sup>*</sup> In Europa . In den USA gabs FB schon 16 Tage vorher am 4.3. Link (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zkyee)</font></font></p>&lt;script>c0="#000000";c1="#400000";c2="#000040";c3="#000050";c4="#000060";c5="#000070";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-3].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-4].bgColor=c2;if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor=c3;a[a.length-6].bgColor=c0;a[a.length-7].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-8].bgColor=c4;a[a.length-9].bgColor=c5;}else{a[a.length-5].bgColor=c0;a[a.length-6].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-7].bgColor=c4;a[a.length-8].bgColor=c5;};image="http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/bar1.jpg";oa=a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundImage="url("+image+")";oa.backgroundPosition="left center";oa.backgroundRepeat="no-repeat";var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src="http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/transparent36.gif";o.height=36;o.width=36;a=document.all.tags["td");for[i=0;i<a.length;i++)if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf["Willey")!=-1)ii=i;a[ii+2].innerHTML="Focke-Wulf Testpilot";</script><font color=000040>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:28 PM
On the other hand, 5.5 degrees is just a pipe dream. Revi view has a bottom limit set by the revi mount.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 01:37 AM
The 5* 35' is the angle from the point of intersection of the line of sight(gun sight) and the slope line to the a/c's nose measured from the exterior of the armoured glass.


WWMaxGunz wrote:
- On the other hand, 5.5 degrees is just a pipe dream.
- Revi view has a bottom limit set by the revi mount.
-




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 05:52 AM
Since that 5 degree 35 minute angle does not originate at the pilots eye, it is not pilot visibility. We don't see light coming into our eye in a straight line as an angle that originated some distance away, at least not without a pinhole aperature and some lenses or reflectors!

That 5-35' thing is not pilot view. Whoever drew that doesn't understand light very well and eyesight even less.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 06:15 AM
Yes, this was the same sort of number that was arrived at at least 9 months ago. I was interested to see how Oleg would address it. He ignored it completely. That really confirmed that the original results we had were correct, rather than the 4 degrees stated.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 06:32 AM
I don't believe that Oleg ever checked the angle and only took someone else's word for it. It is too easy to measure and see that less than 2 1/2 degrees is what is visible, at least for someone who can do high school trig even poorly. This business about 4 degrees... perhaps an angle drawn the same way that the Bently drawings angle was done, except without the refraction? That is not view. That is wrong, and I Am Sure.

Perhaps when more people check? Really only if Oleg checks or maybe Luthier or someone else he will listen to checks then there might be some chance of a change. Hopefully the work done on refractive effects will give a direction on How to make the change look proper and improve the realism of the cockpit view.

Oleg, Please!
3 degrees is what FW says. You say we got 4. So maybe you would not mind giving us a full 3 degrees instead of 2.38 we have now, measured by the revi circle in the sim itself!


Neal

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:12 PM
I somehow feel the urge to give it a bump so...

BUMP!

Now, because of the lack of refractions, we EITHER have correct cockpit with incorrect view OR incorrect cockpit with correct view. I'm guessing it's the former not the latter.

Anyways,

BUMP!

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:35 PM
hold on hold on

OK, I haven't been to University in years and I haven't cracked a trig book since then. I also haven't worked in the aerospace feild since January...but...


angles are measured in degrees

Radii are still measured in linear terms, right? As in, "3cm radius", correct? That hasn't changed while I was away, has it? Is this "degrees of radius" thing a European term I'm not familiar with? ? ?

This 2.XX degree radius thing is very confusing to me.



~edit

to clarify: draw a circle. Now find the center. Draw a straight line from the center to any edge of the circle. That's radius. Linear measurement. The line is straight, just measure the length

Now draw any two straight lines that cross. You have made 4 angles. The measurement used to determine the angles is degrees. What you do is take two points on any angle, each measured the same distance from the point at which the lines join and you can use a compass to describe an arc that joins the two points. Now you have X number of degrees out of 360* that describe the full circle using the two points you made on the lines that met to draw the angle (or, if you like, you just described the length of the circle's radius on each line, and you use degrees to measure how close those two radii are on the circle)...or has math changed?



Message Edited on 06/20/0304:45PM by BBB462cid

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:42 PM
I see what they are saying. Like moon has a 0.5 degree "diameter" (as seen Earth)
Angular radius. How wide something is in angle (or actually half that).

btw, any comments on the size of the moon in FB? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:47 PM
seemed like he was confusing part of an angle that he can see with radius to me


The moon? "big"

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 05:05 PM
BBB462cid wrote:
- seemed like he was confusing part of an angle that
- he can see with radius to me
-
-
- The moon? "big"
-
-


If WWmaxgunz's original post had refered to 'span of arc described by revi reticule' instead of radius the math would still come out the same.

Also, the deflection ring is a projection with infinite focal length - it is correct to refer to its width in degrees or mils.

Cheers

Athos

"Then the soldier, Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard, Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation even in the cannon's mouth" W.S

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 06:57 PM
no, you can use radians for measuring angles, which is what we were taught in the army.

http://taipans.dyndns.org/images/sig.jpg (http://taipans.dyndns.org)

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 07:06 PM
well, like I said, it was what he said that confused me because it seemed he was comparing his perception of an angle viewed from a point not pependicular to the plane the angle is in to the actual angle

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 07:12 PM
Im glad to know the truth,thats all.

Some lite reading while you wait?Frontpagemag.com,symposium about US-Russian relations featuring several ex-Soviet dissidents.Interesting opinions.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 07:14 PM
I wish the community could fix the issue so we wouldn't have to wait for oleg to be convinced.

http://taipans.dyndns.org/images/sig.jpg (http://taipans.dyndns.org)

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 07:15 PM
TPN_Bard wrote:
- no, you can use radians for measuring angles, which
- is what we were taught in the army.


Mils, not radians, mils.. bah.. so long ago =)



http://taipans.dyndns.org/images/sig.jpg (http://taipans.dyndns.org)

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 08:43 PM
BBB462cid wrote:

- angles are measured in degrees

Degrees, mils, radian, grads?.

- Radii are still measured in linear terms, right? As
- in, "3cm radius", correct? That hasn't changed while
- I was away, has it? Is this "degrees of radius"
- thing a European term I'm not familiar with? ? ?
-
- This 2.XX degree radius thing is very confusing to
- me.

Okay, think of similar triangles. A bigger triangle with the same proportions has the same angles. there is a triangle with the pilots eye at one vertex, the revi crosshair on the glass at another and the intersection of the revi crosshair and the revi circle on the glass at the third. Projecting that out to 200m from the center of the crosshairs, the counterpart to the leg that is the radius becomes 10m long which allows us to determine the angle from the pilots eye that is as wide as the revi circle.

The crosshair on the revi circle makes 4 radii of the circle. Any one of those can represent the sine while the distance to the revi center from the pilots eye can represent the cosine when you get the tangent of the angle of view by dividing the sine by the cosine, again by the principle of similar triangles.

- ~edit
-
- to clarify: draw a circle. Now find the center. Draw
- a straight line from the center to any edge of the
- circle. That's radius. Linear measurement. The line
- is straight, just measure the length

The center of THAT circle is the pilots eye. The circle I refer to is the lit circle on the revi. The radius I refer to is any of the lit crosshair lines from the center of the lit revi circle to the edge of the same. The angle I refer to is from the pilots eye between the center of the lit crosshairs and where the crosshair radius of the lit circle intersects an edge of the lit circle. That lit radius is the far side of the triangle from the pilots eye. Don't need any arc, just the right angle triangle. the circle I refer to appears perpendicular to the line of sight through the revi.

I hope this sinks in, try running FB and looking at the revi in zoom mode gunsight view.

- Now draw any two straight lines that cross. You have
- made 4 angles. The measurement used to determine the
- angles is degrees. What you do is take two points on
- any angle, each measured the same distance from the
- point at which the lines join and you can use a
- compass to describe an arc that joins the two
- points. Now you have X number of degrees out of 360*
- that describe the full circle using the two points
- you made on the lines that met to draw the angle
- (or, if you like, you just described the length of
- the circle's radius on each line, and you use
- degrees to measure how close those two radii are on
- the circle)...or has math changed?
-

That math ain't changed in hundreds of years, you've just forgot a bit. I sat in trig class in the '73-'74 school year but on and off used the basics. How long has it been for you?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:13 PM
From Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 2nd edition;

Lunar mean radius is 1,740,000m.
Earth mean radius is 6,370,000m.
Average earth-moon distance is 384,000,000m

So we subtract the radius of earth from that distance since we are standing on the surface and the distance is center to center and take that as the long leg (but not the hypoteneuse) and the short leg is the lunar radius.

Tangent of 1/2 view angle = 1,740,000 / 377,630,000 = 0.0046~

1/2 of the view angle of the moon is just over .26 degrees so the whole width is just over 1/2 degree. And yet, stand out and see how big it looks in the sky and figure that the bar blocks the revi off from an even bigger angle than that.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:25 PM
---1/2 of the view angle of the moon is just over 0.26
---degrees so the whole width is just over 1/2 degree. And
---yet, stand out and see how big it looks in the sky and
---figure that the bar blocks the revi off from an even
---bigger angle than that.

The FB 90 degree wide view crunches 90 degrees into the ~20 degree wide monitor image. Crunch time. That's why a full moon looks so small in FB, and why the Fake flight sims make the moon larger, to make their simmers more comfortable. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

We should be able to line up 180 FB moons across the monitor, when in 90 degree wide view. The FB moon should be somewhat smaller. But even Oleg's simmers demand to see *something* when in wide field of view. No wonder Oleg had to get his ulcer patched.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 10:23 PM
Oh oh.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:26 AM
what's the possibility of bypassing oleg and party and releasing a third party fix.

the evidence is conclusive, the effect of the error on playability is huge for any OKL squad involved in online wars. The current policy isn't going to get the problem fixed.

what would be needed to figure it out?

I would assume the in pit model would need to be modified. Is there a proprietry encoding of the 3d models that needs to be cracked to allow a user made mod to be implemented?





http://taipans.dyndns.org/images/sig.jpg (http://taipans.dyndns.org)

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:41 AM
Don't even bother, the files are supposed to be encrypted.

It'd be funny to see online wars where both sides use the same planes.

Time to see where Maddox Games stands is all.


Neal