PDA

View Full Version : Am I in a tank? Zero cockpit, this must be fixed!!



Jieitai_Tsunami
07-12-2004, 06:07 PM
I was hosting a game today and chatting with some one a little.
I said the Zero cockpit was so hard to look out from! and all seems to point to the real view from the pit to be better than, almost all US aircraft! Not just the 6 but sides too!
So this lack of view takes away one of the main advantages of the Zero...

The Zero cockpit window struts are three or four times to thick! Has any one noticed this?

It must be fixed....And I am sure the dev team could at least remove 1/4 of the width from the slats without much effort.

Check photos below with this site:

http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/dave_pluth/blayd/blayd.htm

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero2.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero3.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero4.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero5.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero7.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero6.jpg

http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/Images/Main%20logo.jpg

[This message was edited by Jieitai_Tsunami on Tue July 13 2004 at 04:01 AM.]

Jieitai_Tsunami
07-12-2004, 06:07 PM
I was hosting a game today and chatting with some one a little.
I said the Zero cockpit was so hard to look out from! and all seems to point to the real view from the pit to be better than, almost all US aircraft! Not just the 6 but sides too!
So this lack of view takes away one of the main advantages of the Zero...

The Zero cockpit window struts are three or four times to thick! Has any one noticed this?

It must be fixed....And I am sure the dev team could at least remove 1/4 of the width from the slats without much effort.

Check photos below with this site:

http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/dave_pluth/blayd/blayd.htm

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero2.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero3.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero4.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero5.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero7.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero6.jpg

http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/Images/Main%20logo.jpg

[This message was edited by Jieitai_Tsunami on Tue July 13 2004 at 04:01 AM.]

609IAP_Recon
07-12-2004, 06:44 PM
welcome to FB - check out the 190 while your at it

Salute!

S!
7thFS_Recon, CO
7th Fighter Squadron
"Screamin' Demons" (http://7thfs.forgottenskies.com)


http://www.forgottenskies.com/ScreaminDemons.gif
Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com)

LuftLuver
07-12-2004, 08:46 PM
You is wrong.

Check out the Spitfire IX for a splendid view.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

BBB_Hyperion
07-12-2004, 09:22 PM
Indeed Spitfire should be a half ring worse forward view than fw. In this game however after original blueprints without glas effects. Some struts tend to be overdone also the limited view position restricts sighting as well.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

LEXX_Luthor
07-12-2004, 10:41 PM
Oleg got one thing correct, the historical hysterical pilot Whining about cockpit view.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-12-2004, 10:54 PM
Seems the FOV for the Zero is way off. It's like you're leaned forward right up against the seat harness.

It seems really bad on the ground, but once I get airborne, I get used to it, and it doesn't bother me that much.

But that doesn't make it right.

Check out Target:Rabaul (http://www.targetware.net) for a nice Zero cockpit view.

ASH at S-MART
07-12-2004, 11:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jieitai_Tsunami:
I was hosting a game today and chatting with some one a little.
I said the Zero cockpit was so hard to look out from! and all seems to point to the real view from the pit to be better than, almost all US aircraft! Not just the 6 but sides too!

The Zero cockpit window struts are three or four times to thick! Has any one noticed this?

It must be fixed....I'll post comparison photos if I can.

http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/Images/Main%20logo.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Welcome to simulations... The PC 21" monitor and 2D image displayed on it can never match that of real life...

With that said the real question is... What do you DO in the simulation to MAKE UP for it's short commings?

Do you do something.. UNREALISTIC to try and make up for the simulation limitations?

I SAY YES!

And when you stop and think about it.. What I and other propose is actually a REALISTIC thing.. Not a MAKE UP for the simulation limitations.

But to REALISE that it is REAL you have to understand how the human EYE(s) work.

What SHOULD be done is to make the canopy STRUTS (ie the metal bars that hold the glass) semi transparent.. By semi tranparent I mean they still have the same shape, size and color.. but like a cloud.. you can KIND OF SEE though them. That would not only SIMULATE how the human EYE(S) work.. But it would MAKE up for some of the simulations limitaions.

Problem is alot of people *THINK* doing that is in and of itself NOT REAL! So it can and should not be done.. But *THOSE* people just dont know how the human EYE(s) work.

It is too late for IL2.. And most likly too late for PF.. But I hope they can do it for BoB.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

BennyMoore
07-13-2004, 01:20 AM
Actually, think about when you're in your car. The supports holding the roof up really do block your vision.

What should be done is to make the edges of the canopy transparent, because that is the way the human eye works. Unless you have eyes on the sides of your head like a rabbit, you won't be able to see completely around an object that's thicker than dental floss.

However, this would not look right, I think, as our eyes are used to this, and adding it inside of a game would be reduntant and look unnatural.

What the ultimately realistic solution would be is making the pilot's head moveable. It's already turnable, but what about moving it? That's how you look around things like canopy supports in real life. Why can't we do it in the game? In addition, this would let us "rubberneck" like the pilots were told to do in real life.

CaptainGelo
07-13-2004, 01:39 AM
try yak9's...

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/oleg86.jpg
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''


plane is 2slow, guns are 2weak and DM suck?...Then click here (http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3) | Fear british army. (http://216.144.230.195/Videos/Medium_WMP8/British_Attack.wmv)

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you..

WOLFMondo
07-13-2004, 04:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by oleg86:
try yak9's...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They win the prize for crappest view and gunsite. I think the Fw190 and BF109 are poorly designed as far as there sites go, the P63 is like wearning horse blinkers there so much metal in the canopy, the P47D razorbacks have a bit of metal right down the middle which is pretty annoying and the spit is akin to looking through a tank periscope there so much **** in the way.

I like the P39, P47D27 and P51D, they all have great views. Probably one reason I like them so much.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

SeaFireLIV
07-13-2004, 05:01 AM
I`m not adding to the `I think this is how it should be` whines! But i`ve always wondered what the guys were thinking when they made the P47D Razorback (and another pacific US aircraft) have that BAR right down the middle of the cockpit.

How did those guys see anything in WWII? Perhaps the thinking was to avoid a bullet hitting the pilot from the front?

Anyway, it was real and was there so, of course, KEEP it.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Yakgirlgo.jpg
Time to Escape!

Want to see more? go here: http://seafire.dreyermachine.com/
(Fantasy sections for mature viewers only).

Jieitai_Tsunami
07-13-2004, 05:07 AM
Remember that the US aircraft weren't built for view. Rather adding as much armour and protection as possible. So when the Zero is on there 6 firing at the amour plating at the rear. There wing man can help with no harm to the pilot being hit.

Japanese aircraft are almost always offencive. If you have some one on your 6 your've already on your way to loosing the fight..

DarthBane_
07-13-2004, 05:26 AM
I never fly zero in FB because of wrong modeled bars. Not interested in PF because of that. All in all i think im becoming sick of this flash and bars issue that have nothing to do with things as they were.
In pony you have practicly cockpit off enabled, i never saw thinner bars ever. Way to go 1c! Great work.

Nub_322Sqn
07-13-2004, 05:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jieitai_Tsunami:
Remember that the US aircraft weren't built for view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why they put a bubble top on the P47's and P51's and the Malcolm hood on the Early P51's, because they where not building their planes for view.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

MetalG.
07-13-2004, 06:13 AM
Looking at the canopy in pictures of Zeros, I'd say the struts are indeed too thick in the cockpit restricting the view quite a lot.
However this ofcourse doesn't mean much since it might be just the picture making it look that way.

What we really need is for someone to sit inside a Zero and take some pictures of the all around view in the Zero which we can then compare more closely to the cockpit as it is ingame. I'd try to do so if there were any Zero cockpits close to me however there aren't any, and I don't know which museums have any Zeros.

For me, the way the cockpit is now, it's very hard to maintain good SA.. maybe that's just me though.

Nub_322Sqn
07-13-2004, 07:33 AM
I am afraid the Zero's are far beyond your reach MetalG since they all flew on the other side of the world (well nearly) geographicly speaking.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

SeaFireLIV
07-13-2004, 07:40 AM
MetalG`s right.

Also, the pics in the first post have come up to me, so I can see them now.

In the outside frame pics the FB bars are a tad thicker than the apparent real-life picture. Yes.

But as for the INTERNAL COCKPIT picture that`s still open for debate. It`s possible that in cockpit the bars may indeed be thinner, but only slightly so, certainly NOT as much as is rubbed - out in your touched up picture.

Remember, you are having to work from a FAR OUT outside view perspective, so that does not show how it REALLY might look. We need a `head position` internal view.

Personally, I`ve no trouble with view in this aircraft, I naturally compensate by rudder twisting/rolling to see.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Yakgirlgo.jpg
Time to Escape!

Want to see more? go here: http://seafire.dreyermachine.com/
(Fantasy sections for mature viewers only).

MetalG.
07-13-2004, 08:13 AM
Yep true Nub, but I'm pretty sure there are some museums with Zeros in the US and probably Japan as well...
Now to be allowed to sit in one may be a different story all together http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif dunno if you are allowed to sit in the cockpit at all.
Hopefully someone over there can help us out.

ASH at S-MART
07-13-2004, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Actually, think about when you're in your car. The supports holding the roof up really do block your vision.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes and No.. They only block things that are very close to you and very small.. ie a few feet and smaller then a bread box.. And an aircraft is neither.. But even if that was NOT true.. semi-transparent cockpit bars would simulate the way your eye(s) work and MAKE UP for the simulators inability to LEAN a little left or right.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
What should be done is to make the _edges_ of the canopy transparent, because that _is_ the way the human eye works.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only true for things up close and small.. Anything of any size or at a distance and you wouldnt even notice them much.. because your eye(s) are focusing at a distance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Unless you have eyes on the sides of your head like a rabbit, you won't be able to see completely around an object that's thicker than dental floss.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.. But dont feel bad.. It is hard for some people to visualize (pun intended) this senario.. because it is so automatic.. Only when you perposuly look at the canopy bars will they seem large and sold.. because you are now focusing on THEM instead of at a DISTANCE... Note talking real life here not the sim.. In the sim everything is in focus all the time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
However, this would not look right, I think, as our eyes are used to this, and adding it inside of a game would be reduntant and look unnatural.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which goes back to my orginal statement.. Some dont think it is realistic.. because they dont know how thier eye(s) work.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
What the ultimately realistic solution would be is making the pilot's head moveable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually you would need both.. moveable and semi transparent edges.. But that is difucult for both the input devices and the 3D art.. So making the all of the cockpit bar semi transparet (ie not just the edges) would SIMULATE both the way the eye(s) work and the ability to lean a little.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
It's already turnable, but what about moving it? That's how you look around things like canopy supports in real life. Why can't we do it in the game? In addition, this would let us "rubberneck" like the pilots were told to do in real life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would be all for that... you could actually LINK the LEAN to the direction you LOOK.. That is to say that if you made the POV move (ie LEAN your HEAD) a little to the LEFT when you LOOK left and visa versa that would be GREAT! In that is what you would do 90% of the time anyways.. ie LOOK LEFT LEAN LEFT.. But as I pointed out above.. It would require alot more 3D art work.. Which is why I think we will see (pun intended) semi transparent cockpit bars before we see semit transparent cockpit bar edges and the ability to lean.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-13-2004, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I`m not adding to the `I think this is how it should be` whines!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why is it anytime someone talks about simulations it is considered a whine?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
But i`ve always wondered what the guys were thinking when they made the P47D Razorback (and another pacific US aircraft) have that BAR right down the middle of the cockpit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They were thinking as people would think that understood how the human eye(s) work... *THEY* realised that when you focuse on something beyond the cockpit bar that the bars would be practally invisable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
How did those guys see anything in WWII? Perhaps the thinking was to avoid a bullet hitting the pilot from the front?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your ignorance to how the human eye(s) works has enabled you to unknowingly comment on the perfect example of why the cockpit bars should be semi-transparent.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Anyway, it was real and was there so, of course, KEEP it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-13-2004, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MetalG.:
What we really need is for someone to sit inside a Zero and take some pictures of the all around view in the Zero which we can then compare more closely to the cockpit as it is ingame. I'd try to do so if there were any Zero cockpits close to me however there aren't any, and I don't know which museums have any Zeros.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here in So. Cal

http://www.planesoffame.com

The have the ONLY flyable ZERO in the WORLD that still has an orginal engine.. By orginal I dont mean it has not been rebuild.. Only that it was not replaced with a PnW.

PS it is a beautful thing to go and watch fly.. I have been to chino a few times over the years and there is nothing like SEEING and HEARING that zero do a fly by.. Best part is when they do the fly by with a P38 in persut! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2004, 11:18 AM
Oh, boy, here we go with this LEAN thing again.

Guys, for every artificial lean you program in one direction, there will be something you can't see that you would have if the lean wasn't there.

In other words, *something* will always be obscured by the canopy braces. That is their nature.

I agree with the idea of semi transparency to create that binocular vision effect. This creates the most realistic effect. I've seen this in effect in a few Targetware planes, and it's flat out THE right solution to cockpit accuracy vs. binocular vision and situational awareness.

But it would help if the design team wasn't going out of their way to create overly-thick braces in the first place. The Focke Wulf, as we all know, takes the cake in this regard. The Zero isn't as bad, but it's bad enough.

Although I'd NEVER, EVER condone it, or agree with it, I begin to see why guys wimp out and go to the WonderWoman view to compensate. (By the way, there is no excuse to ever use that view and have anything to say about realism).

SeaFireLIV
07-13-2004, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I`m not adding to the `I think this is how it should be` whines!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why is it anytime someone talks about simulations it is considered a whine?


Fair point, I guess. Sometimes hard to see the wood for the trees.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
But i`ve always wondered what the guys were thinking when they made the P47D Razorback (and another pacific US aircraft) have that BAR right down the middle of the cockpit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They were thinking as people would think that understood how the human eye(s) work... *THEY* realised that when you focuse on something beyond the cockpit bar that the bars would be practally invisable.



Not sure why you emphasise the *they* bit. You seem to think I`m implying something else. Oh no, you think I`m criticising Americans, don`t you? This is what`s set you off, right? Well that was not my intention. Tut tut... assumptions... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
How did those guys see anything in WWII? Perhaps the thinking was to avoid a bullet hitting the pilot from the front?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your ignorance to how the human eye(s) works has enabled you to unknowingly comment on the perfect example of why the cockpit bars should be semi-transparent.



Well, I assumed they leaned, but you`ve flown these planes haven`t you and know better.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Anyway, it was real and was there so, of course, KEEP it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I freely admit my views were just that. I surmised from what appears logical and that`s how I approach my work since it deals in the `illusion of the optical` I`m not ashamed to admit that I`m no expert in how the bar would work on aircraft in the air, unlike you who obviously considers himself emminently qualified and an expert on these matters.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Yakgirlgo.jpg
Time to Escape!

Want to see more? go here: http://seafire.dreyermachine.com/
(Fantasy sections for mature viewers only).

Jieitai_Tsunami
07-13-2004, 02:44 PM
I just wanted them to cut a little off so you do not feel like a monkey in a cage http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. But the transparent effect would be very good!

Though I the dev team are using some type of 3d design program using 3d shapes joined together. So unless they removed the struts and put them on the glass it's self. If you know what I mean.

Simply changing the pit would be a great improvement. At least in one of the PF patches.

http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/Images/Main%20logo.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
07-13-2004, 02:51 PM
For binocular vision, you must have two (2) canopy struts for each real strut, and they can be semi~transparent except solid where the real life images overlap. Also the binocular vision depends on the angle the strut makes with the line between the eyes--or unibrows--as RBJ was the only flight simmer at ubi.com to ever notice this angle dependency on transparency. Basically, the horizontal struts should have no transparency or dual images. Nobody but RBJ else thought about this angle issue. :bowtorbjsmileyface.rbj:

You will notice nobody wants to talk about two binocular vision images--I talk to myself here lol--and this proves these fake flight simmers know nothing about either flying or binocular vision.

If flight simmers were Happy with cockpit view, that would mean Oleg made Fake cockpits. The Baby Whining about cockpit view is historically correct (real life pilots wanted to "turn off" their cockpits too but for some reason the engineers refused to let them have that Option). Oleg got these cockpits spot on Perfect. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

I need to stop talking to myself here lol


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LEXX_Luthor
07-13-2004, 02:57 PM
About the LEAN. Stiglr is correct about leaning and still having vision blocked but he/she "forgot" that real life pilots leaned back again to see around them, and they leaned again to see around more. Real life pilots leaned constantly the whole mission to see around this or that obstruction.

But only real life pilots would know about this.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ASH at S-MART
07-13-2004, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Fair point, I guess. Sometimes hard to see the wood for the trees.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>For some.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Not sure why you emphasise the *they* bit. You seem to think I`m implying something else. Oh no, you think I`m criticising Americans, don`t you? This is what`s set you off, right? Well that was not my intention. Tut tut... assumptions... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Talk about making assumptions! As for Americans... no I did not assume that, my reference to THEY was more to do with the topic at hand where I pointed out early on that SOME people understand how the human eye(s) work and SOME don't.. Thus the reference to THEY was to the group that understands.. i.e. the group you are not in.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Well, I assumed they leaned, but you`ve flown these planes haven`t you and know better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There you go assuming again.. but now you contradict yourself.. In that your statement clearly shows you don't realize that the bar down the center would be practically invisible due to how the human eyes work.. lean or no lean... As for flying them, no, I wish, but that is not a requirement to understand how human eye(s) work.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I freely admit my views were just that. I surmised from what appears logical and that`s how I approach my work since it deals in the `illusion of the optical` I`m not ashamed to admit that I`m no expert in how the bar would work on aircraft in the air, unlike you who obviously considers himself emminently qualified and an expert on these matters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not an expert, just not as ignorant on the subject as you clearly are.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-13-2004, 06:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
For binocular vision, you must have two (2) canopy struts for each real strut, and they can be semi~transparent except solid where the real life images _overlap_.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The goal here is not to make a 3D image with depth.. Just to simulate the effect human eye(s) would have on solid objects and how you can see around them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Also the binocular vision depends on the angle the strut makes with the line between the eyes--or unibrows--as RBJ was the only flight simmer at ubi.com to ever notice this angle dependency on transparency. Basically, the horizontal struts should have no transparency or dual images. Nobody but RBJ else thought about this angle issue. :bowtorbjsmileyface.rbj:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That would be true *IF* our heads were set on a flat turn table (record player like) when there turned left and right... But the are not.. When we turn our heads tilt, thus a bar that was horizontal to us when we look forward would be at an angle when we look left/right.. like the side canopy bars for example.. But you are correct, a horizontal bar would negate the effect a lot.. but in that case the pilot would simply sit up/down a bit in the chair.. just as he would lean left/right in other cases.. So, making the whole cockpit bar semi transparent would simulate how the human eyes work and MAKE UP for the limitations of the simulation to LEAN

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
You will notice nobody wants to talk about two binocular vision images--I talk to myself here lol--and this proves these fake flight simmers know nothing about either flying or binocular vision.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well doing 3D depth is another topic.. right now it is just about obscured views due to the limitations of the simulation on a PC with a 21" monitor.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
If flight simmers were Happy with cockpit view, that would mean Oleg made Fake cockpits. The Baby Whining about cockpit view is historically correct (real life pilots wanted to "turn off" their cockpits too but for some reason the engineers refused to let them have that Option). Oleg got these cockpits spot on Perfect. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, they are spot on in the 2D sense.. proportion wise and all that.. And if one were to put a camera in the cockpit of a real aircraft and position it where you head would be I'm sure the real photo and the IL2 cockpit would look very similar (except for the light refraction problem like in the Fw190) but we are not talking about 2D mono vs. 2D mono.. We are talking about how the human eye(s) would make solid objects appear to be transparent.. i.e. able to see though them when you look at something beyond them.. like an airplane 100ft away.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I need to stop talking to myself here lol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which use to be the sure sign of a crazy perons... until head set cell phones came popular.. But I still think those people look crazy.. Oh and just to be clear.. when I say *those* people I am NOT singling out Americans.. So don't assume again SeaFireLIV and go on some other rant! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-13-2004, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Oh, boy, here we go with this LEAN thing again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok.. who was holding the gun to Stiglr's head this time and FORCED him to respond? Come on.. who did it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If such topics bother you so much.. why do you respond? Are you like bat man protecting the innocent? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Guys, for every artificial lean you program in one direction, there will be something you can't see that you would have if the lean wasn't there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What Stiglr fails to realize is the views overlap.. Thus *if* something is visible/invisible in say the forward view.. when you look AND lean left it *might* be invisible/visible in that view.. But at least with the lean it would not be blocked in both views.. Which is what we have now.. At least IL2 has the SHIFT forward and back views (Shift F1) that simulates a LEAN forward and back.. All we need now is a LEAN left and right.. And instead of making it a separate key press, simply LINK it to the current view systems.. i.e. when you LOOK left it will LEAN left, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
In other words, *something* will always be obscured by the canopy braces. That is their nature.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually their nature.. or purpose is to hold the glass.. not block your view.. currently if it is blocked by a canopy strut in the forward view, it will be blocked in the forward-left view (i.e. 45 left).. But if you could LEAN left when you look forward-left what was blocked in the forward view would now be visible in the forward-left view.. Thus simulating LEAN.. But that req a lot more art work.. So, simply make the cockpit bars semi-transparent.. That would more realistically simulate the human eye(s) *AND* MAKE UP for the inability to LEAN.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I agree with the idea of semi transparency to create that binocular vision effect. This creates the most realistic effect. I've seen this in effect in a few Targetware planes, and it's flat out THE right solution to cockpit accuracy vs. binocular vision and situational awareness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Congratulations! Because a few months back you were dead set AGAINST that too.. I'm just glad Targetware came out.. Otherwise you might not have realized it! So.. what sim has to come out next for you to change you toon on LEANING? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
But it would help if the design team wasn't going out of their way to create overly-thick braces in the first place. The Focke Wulf, as we all know, takes the cake in this regard. The Zero isn't as bad, but it's bad enough.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, the size is fine.. and realistic.. but AS WITH THE LIMITATIONS IN LEANING.. and HOW THE HUMAN EYE(S) WORK so too is the LIMITATIONS OF SIMULATING LIGHT REFRACTION.. But to MAKE UP for that they could simply draw the art to PRE-ACCOUNT for this, saving the need to calculate it in real time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Although I'd NEVER, EVER condone it, or agree with it, I begin to see why guys wimp out and go to the WonderWoman view to compensate. (By the way, there is no excuse to ever use that view and have anything to say about realism).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wonder Woman is an extream case.. semi-transparent cockpit bars would still obscure you view a bit.. like clouds do when you first enter them.. But enough to where you could maintain track of the bogie as it moves behind a cockpit bar.. But not so transparent that you would spot a DOT at 1 mile out behind the bar.. You would still have to realistically scan the skys like they did.. But at least once you found it you wouldn't loose it due to the limitations of the simulation.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
07-13-2004, 08:27 PM
Yes, I agree with a full head movement simulation--up and down, side to side, and forward and back. Tilting head is not so important. For example the horizontal bar up in front and above in the Fb109 Email--instead of tilting head almost 90 degrees (neck strain) to make dubious use of binocular vision, the pilot would simply move head forward or back instead to see completely around the horizontal bar. Tilting head will not be much use when we can move our head in the three dimensions.

Worse, the semi~transparent bars in no way support a claim for increased "realism" but are a way for game Devs to cheaply get away from moving head. The only way semi~transparent bars can be called an "increase in realism" is if two (2) transparent bar images are rendered for each real bar (with solid bars where the images overlap), and the more horizontal bars with less increased solid overrlap -- again the tilting of head will never be used *provided* we have full head motion forward, up, and side.


ASH:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I need to stop talking to myself here lol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which use to be the sure sign of a crazy perons...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is now another sign
http://www.ubi.com http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ASH at S-MART
07-13-2004, 09:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Yes, I agree with a full head movement simulation--up and down, side to side, and forward and back.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. Ok, but I'm not actually calling for it.. I'm just pointing out that simple truism about real vs. simulation... Tilting, Leaning, i.e. anything that requires the currently FIX POV to move will impact the complexity of the cockpit art.. At least that is what the guys like Gibbage have indicated. Assuming that is the case, I *think* it would be easier to just keep the fixed POV and make the cockpit canopy frames semi transparent.. One because it is actually the effect you would get with real human eye(s) and Two because it would MAKE UP for the lack of lean.

Just to be painfully clear here.. in real life NOT ALL of the bars would appear to be uniformly transparent.. depending on the thickness they would appear more transparent near the edges and more solid near the center.. But to model that in real time *may* be more difficult? That along with the FACT of a LACK of ability to LEAN I think it would be a good compromise to just make them uniformly transparent.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Tilting head is not so important.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Never said it was, I simply pointed out the ERROR in RBJ's argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
For example the horizontal bar up in front and above in the Fb109 Email--instead of tilting head almost 90 degrees (neck strain) to make dubious use of binocular vision, the pilot would simply move head forward or back instead to see completely around the horizontal bar. Tilting head will not be much use when we can move our head in the three dimensions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes and No.. you wouldn't have to tilt your head 90 degrees.. a little goes along way.. if a little didn't go a long ways our eyes would be very far apart.. instead of the current inch or so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Worse, the semi~transparent bars in no way support a claim for increased "realism" but are a way for game Devs to cheaply get away from moving head.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true at all.. not by a long shot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The only way semi~transparent bars can be called an "increase in realism" is if two (2) transparent bar images are rendered for each real bar (with solid bars where the images overlap), and the more horizontal bars with less increased solid overrlap -- again the tilting of head will never be used *provided* we have full head motion forward, up, and side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of simulation of real life do you not understand? This program we all enjoy is not called "SIMULATION OF THE 3D DEPTH PERCEPTION" it is called a FLIGHT SIMULATION.. And as far as I know, nobody is under the impression that simulation = reality.. Everything is a compromise.. We are just kicking around ideas that would make it more like reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
There is now another sign<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dont be too hard on yourself.. This stuff takes a little time to sink in.. Look how long it took stiglr to realise that semi-transparent is a good thing! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
07-14-2004, 12:45 AM
ASH:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Just to be painfully clear here.. in real life NOT ALL of the bars would appear to be uniformly transparent.. depending on the thickness they would appear more transparent near the edges and more solid near the center.. But to model that in real time *may* be more difficult? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The transparent image in human binocular vision is caused by one only eye seeing--the other eye is blocked. This transparent image would be generated by a uniform transparency. You must not be familiar with this--just think to yourself that the transparent image is created by one eye seeing and the other eye blocked. The seeing eye has the normal image but its not as effective as both eyes together (hence the uniform transparency). So if your single bar "uniform" transparency is easily rendered, so are two of them. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Of course, the solid overlap is no different than what we have now.

ASH:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That along with the FACT of a LACK of ability to LEAN I think it would be a good compromise to just make them uniformly transparent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So we need LEAN...End of Story. We don't need a False idea to tell ourselves we are getting "closer to realism" without head movement. I am wondering if the FEAR of head movement is a FEAR of extra controls needed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Everything is a compromise.. We are just kicking around ideas that would make it more like reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's the problem, these ideas are not any closer to "reality" like we desperately advertise to ourselves--probably to make the sim "easy" -- okay -- less hard. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Head movement models head movement. Twin bars model binocular vision. This is realism. As of now, head movement is more important (I am thinking mmm). I can't tell you how effective is even the very limited movement we get in gunsight view toggle in seeing around canopy bars if you are not familiar with it. Try it -- Amazing stuff it works.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LEXX_Luthor
07-14-2004, 12:52 AM
Wow! Just tried something neat....

I leaned my head forward *and* turned my head left the result of both actions is a tilted head and so tilted line between eyes...or tilted "unibrow" (for lack of a better term). So there is lots of tilted head here. So head movement will result in a variable overlap of canopy bar images. This may be too much to worry about when we have neither yet, but just thought it interesting.

We need head movement -- single transparent bars is no "compromise" for head movement, nor does it begin to pretend to model binocular vision--if you can render one (1) transparent bar, you can easily render a second bar.... in real time.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Mispunt
07-14-2004, 04:13 AM
3 shift modifiers for the joystick hat would make it quite intuitive to move around I think, however it would take a _lot_ of getting used to for Track IR users who use their hats for something else. (hell I find it tricky to walk around after using track IR for a few hours like it is used now) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Mispunt-MisSig.jpg

WB_Outlaw
07-14-2004, 05:57 AM
Hopefully one day the TrackIR will use two IR reflectors allowing it to accurately track head position and tilt in 3d space. That would be cool.

-Outlaw.

CaptainGelo
07-14-2004, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by oleg86:
try yak9's...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They win the prize for crappest view and gunsite. I think the Fw190 and BF109 are poorly designed as far as there sites go, the P63 is like wearning horse blinkers there so much metal in the canopy, the P47D razorbacks have a bit of metal right down the middle which is pretty annoying and the spit is akin to looking through a tank periscope there so much **** in the way.

I like the P39, P47D27 and P51D, they all have great views. Probably one reason I like them so much.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
http://www.wolfgaming.net
Home of WGNDedicated<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

dont you love p38? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif p38 got to have best view for shooting...I JUST LOVE IT, togetther with p63(expect rear view), p47D27, pony and yak3....


I dont think that yak9's view should be that poor, I think its got something to do with limitation you get with 2D grafik....but yak9 got great rear with(if you looking back with wide view).. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/oleg86.jpg
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''


plane is 2slow, guns are 2weak and DM suck?...Then click here (http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3) | Fear british army. (http://216.144.230.195/Videos/Medium_WMP8/British_Attack.wmv)

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you..

ASH at S-MART
07-14-2004, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The transparent image in human binocular vision is caused by one only eye seeing--the other eye is blocked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. and to be clear I never said it wasn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
This transparent image would be generated by a uniform transparency.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not True.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
You must not be familiar with this--just think to yourself that the transparent image is created by one eye seeing and the other eye blocked. The seeing eye has the normal image but its not as effective as both eyes together (hence the uniform transparency). So if your single bar "uniform" transparency is easily rendered, so are two of them. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Of course, the solid overlap is no different than what we have now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, actually your not familiar with this.. in that you only considered a special case.. thin bars... a thicker bar would could block both eyes a little.. The result would be semi transparent at the edges and blocked near the center.. i.e. non uniformed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So we need LEAN...End of Story.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
We don't need a False idea to tell ourselves we are getting "closer to realism" without head movement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Simulations do it all the time... don't fool yourself into thinking your an ace because you play a game! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I am wondering if the FEAR of head movement is a FEAR of extra controls needed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You would be in error.. In that I can deal with the current forward/backward shift (i.e. LEAN) just fine... And I actually pointed out how you don't even need an extra key stroke.. You could just link it to the current Left and Right movements.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
That's the problem, these ideas are not any closer to "reality" like we _desperately_ advertise to ourselves--probably to make the sim "easy" -- okay -- less hard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, wrong, sorry.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Head movement models head movement. Twin bars model binocular vision. This is realism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again.. what part of simulation do you not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
As of now, head movement is more important (I am thinking mmm).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are thinking only because you have not thought about everything... As I pointed out LEANING.. i.e. moving the POV requires more art work.. Thus more development time.. Thus more money spent.. Thus not likely.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I can't tell you how effective is even the very limited movement we get in gunsight view toggle in seeing around canopy bars if you are not familiar with it. Try it -- Amazing stuff it works.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In light of the FACT that I was the one that originally pointed this out to you I would find it hard to belive that I have not tried it.. Wouldn't you? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In summary
Your comming around... a few more of these lessons and you too will realise that semi-transparent cockpit bars will model how the eye(s) work and MAKE UP for the lack of LEAN. Dont belive me? Then try those other cases that you have not done yet.. Dont just use your finger held up in front of your face (ie thin bar simulation) pick something thicker like a flashlight (thick bars) and pick something where both eyes are blocked a little and you will see that the semi tranparent goes to solid near the center... Now in real life all we would have to do is move our head a little.. ie LEAN.. but in the sim we would just make the thick bars semi transparent all the way through.. Thus no need for LEAN and no need for all that extra art work, time and money. Get it?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
07-14-2004, 09:13 AM
ASH:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> This transparent image would be generated by a uniform transparency.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not True.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
mmm, we may be talking different things. By uniform transparency I mean the image is created by one completely functioning eye but the other is blocked--although brightness of certain image areas would be more distracting for the eye, hence the illusion of non~uniform transparency. I am thinking you are trying to say that to simulate double image overlap with a single bar the transparancy must be a function of distance from bar centerline--this could indeed cause a performance hit, but is not needed if we have two bars and is a Fake method of simulating image overlap.



ASH:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We don't need a False idea to tell ourselves we are getting "closer to realism" without head movement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Simulations do it all the time... don't fool yourself into thinking your an ace because you play a game! :Wink: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And the other simulations look like crapp. :wink:

Okay I will just say it...the single transparent bar would look totally Dumb and Stupid...this is no compromise, nor is it any "closer" to realism, although we can tell ourselves that all day. It is a Fake worse than what we have now--no wonder "other sims" chose this fakeout. Anyway head movement is more important than binocular vision (we may agree on this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). I am also thinking of the flight sim Newbie who fires up a sim with single transparent bars and wonders "why does it look like that?" All I can think is that the Newbie will think the single transparent bars are there to make the sim "easy." The Newbie may be onto something. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ASH at S-MART
07-14-2004, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
mmm, we may be talking different things.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Going back and reading your posts.. I think we may be.. Several times you have made references to double image.. or double canopy struts.. The only time you need to draw the same object twice is if your trying to simulate 3D depth on a 2D screen.. You know the old red shift 3D movie glasses of the 50's sort of thing.. That is NOT what we are talking about here.. Except maybe you? Thus maybe you were just talking to yourself? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
By uniform transparency I mean the image is created by one completely functioning eye but the other is blocked--although brightness of certain image areas would be more distracting for the eye, hence the illusion of non~uniform transparency.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is 1 case.. In my last post I mentioned a 2nd.. Where the thing your looking at (i.e. bogie at 300ft) is block but a very thick object (canopy bar) and therefore not totally visibly by either eye.. In such a case the canopy bar would appear semi-transparent near the edges but solid near the center.. Where as a thinner canopy bar would be semi-transparent all the way though.. Because 1 eye can see the object (bogie) with no obstruction. As for brightness effecting the uniformly.. no.. it boils down to 3 cases..

1) the obstruction totally obstructs 1 of the 2 eyes
2) the obstruction partially obstructs both eyes
3) the obstruction totally obstructs both eyes

In case 1 (small/thin) you would have semi-transparent all the way through
In case 2 (large/thick) you would have semi-transparent with a solid middle
In case 3 (very large/thick) you would only solid.. i.e. don't see it

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I am thinking you are trying to say that to simulate double image overlap with a single bar the transparency must be a function of distance from bar centerline--<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sort of saying that.. but what I'm saying is just make it uniformly semi-transparent all the way through the single bar. Reason being it would simulate the effect your eye(s) have and MAKE up for the inability to lean.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
this could indeed cause a performance hit,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Could be, have to ask someone like Gibbage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
but is not needed if we have two bars and is a Fake method of simulating image overlap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are loosing sight (pun intended) of the goal here.. The goal is to try and make a 2D PC monitor as much like a real world cockpit.. In real life you don't notice the double image.. because you are focused beyond them.. All you would really notice is you can see the distant object THROUGH that solid near object.. The best way to simulate that is to make the current SINGLE strut image semi-transparent. Because the PC monitor does NOT KNOW WHERE YOUR EYES ARE FOCUSING!! Thus the PC monitor... how did you say it? FAKES it by making everything in focus near and far!! So you see, we all ready have something FAKE! As I pointed out before, simulations are not equal to reality! This kind of FAKING it goes on all the time in ever aspect of the sim!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
And the other simulations look like crapp. :wink:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Well guess it depends on what you consider to be ****.. Allow me to tell you what I think would look like ****... Doing what you propose would look like ****! Drawing TWO cockpit bars that overlap and semi transparent! Especially when you consider that you don't even notice the double image when looking beyond it.. All you do notice is you CAN SEE THROUGH IT!! A double image overlap might be more realistic in a simulation of how the human eyes work.. And would be a MAJOR HIT on the frame rate.. But this simulation's goal is flight simulations.. not the human eye. Don't loose sight (pun intended) of the goal here!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Okay I will just say it...the single transparent bar would look totally Dumb and Stupid...this is no compromise, nor is it any "closer" to realism, although we can tell ourselves that all day.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is your opinion.. not mine. For mine see above.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
It is a Fake worse than what we have now--no wonder "other sims" chose this fakeout.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>News flash for you.. everything in a simulation is FAKE! But sticking to the topic.. with regards to views.. The everything in focus is FAKE too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Anyway head movement is more important than binocular vision (we may agree on this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just to be PAINFULLY clear here.. I am NOT AGAINST head movements (i.e. LEAN). I simply pointed out that making the cockpit struts semi-transparent would MAKE UP for (I.E. SIMULATE LEAN) the inability to lean.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I am also thinking of the flight sim Newbie who fires up a sim with single transparent bars and wonders "_why does it look like that?"_ All I can think is that the Newbie will think the single transparent bars are there to make the sim "easy." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Ill tell you one thing for sure.. he would figure out why they are semi-trans parent a lot quicker then if he saw a double image of the same strut overlapping itself.. That noobie would be returning his video card thinking it was broke or something! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The Newbie may be onto something. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No that noobie would just understand how the human eyes work.. unlike some of the so called vets here! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

LeadSpitter_
07-14-2004, 04:57 PM
you is wrong!

zero cockpit has great visability, i just wish we can cycle the sites with recticle dimmer for the iron site.

190 is fine too even tho the bar IS WRONG and fisheye lens makes it even look thicker 100s OF PROOF PICTURES YOU IS WRONG!

the worst cockpit is the p47d10 22 they need to remove the antenna triangle and make look like a perspective model.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

ASH at S-MART
07-14-2004, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Wow! Just tried something neat....

I leaned my head forward *and* turned my head left the result of both actions is a tilted head and so tilted line between eyes...or tilted "unibrow" (for lack of a better term).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Glad I could help!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
So there is lots of tilted head here. So head movement will result in a variable overlap of canopy bar images.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup, exactally what I said when I pointed out the error in RBJ's mistake.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
This may be too much to worry about when we have neither yet, but just thought it interesting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Can you say BoB?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
We need head movement<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not exacta.. but would be neat if they could mange the extra art work, thus time and money.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
-- single transparent bars is no "compromise" for head movement,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
nor does it begin to pretend to model binocular vision--<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true either.. keep in mind when people say binocular vision they are typically talking about depth perception.. The ability of our brain to detect the triangulation of our eyes and their focus.. Which enables us to judge depth... The fact that NEAR objects appear semi-transparent when looking at FAR objects is just a byproduct of binocular vision.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
if you can render one (1) transparent bar, you can easily render a second bar.... in real time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Define easily.. In that I think you are WRONG! In that what your saying is it is no harder for a 3D card to display two images instead of just one.. And that is just not true.. it would not be twice as hard in some cases.. but definitely some overhead.. In short not without cost in frame rate.. Thus not what I would consider EASY. That and there is NO NEED to simulate something your BRAIN does not even NOTICE! It would be like adding BREATHING to a flight simulator.. it is automatic.. You don't even notice it. But the byproduct EFFECT of binocular vision.. i.e. the ability to see through/around things close up when looking far away is something you would notice.

The only time a PC would bother to display two of the same images at different reference points is if your trying to do the red shift 3D image stuff and simulate depth.. ala like the campy 50's 3D drive in movies.. They now make glasses for the PC that do that independed of the software.. Check out TrakIR's web sight.. But that is a whole different topic.. The one at hand is the UNREALISTIC NESS of a seemingly solid cockpit bar.. In real life your eyes combined with the ability to move your head would make them very UN-NOTICEABLE.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
07-14-2004, 08:31 PM
ASH (TAGERT):: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Doing what you propose would look like crapp! Drawing TWO cockpit bars that overlap and semi transparent! Especially when you consider that you don't even notice the double image when looking beyond it.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You do see two (possibly overlapping) images of a single object when you focus your eyes far beyond them. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Enough! I just realized by your response style that you are the old TAGERT. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif I am ash~whipped! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ASH at S-MART
07-14-2004, 08:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
You do see two images when you look beyond them. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No.. no actually you dont.. unless you decide to look at them.. Othewise there go un-noticed.. Just like breathing.. You can decide to control it.. ie stop.. But for the most part it goes un-noticed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Enough__!__, I just realized by your response style that you are the old TAGERT. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I do feel like a target sometimes.. Espically when dealing with people who realise they are wrong.. And instead of admiting it.. turn to tangent topics and or redefine what they initally said... Shoe fit?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
07-14-2004, 08:45 PM
GOT IT! Actually, that is an interesting idea you have raised....the brain is trained to ignore the transparent images unless you pay attention to them.

It doesn't work out completely though. Consider a thin vertical bar that has no overlap in the binocular vision images. You will still notice the two transparent images as you search beyond them, and even if you do not you will still naturally wish to move head to see with no obstructions.

Or not? If your idea is correct, then a cockpit with thin verticle bars that have no overlap should have none of these thin bars rendered at all....some truly transparent bars. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Or worse, any area of non~overlap should not be rendered, leaving only the overlap area to be rendered--very distorted looking. I assume this is not what you are talking about for the single transparent bars.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ASH at S-MART
07-14-2004, 09:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
GOT IT__!__ Actually, that is an interesting idea you have raised....the brain is trained to ignore the transparent images unless you pay attention to them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger! When you look beyond (i.e. far) the cockpit frames (i.e. near) you *see* the bar(s) but.. what you don't really notices is that you see through/around them as if they were not there.. i.e. semi-transparent.. That is you can still make out the basic outline and color of the bar.. but sense you are focused on the far object (bogie) and not the bar itself you don't notice the bar.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
It doesn't work out completely though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It being? Keep in mind from the get go I have noted that everything is a compromise! Call it what you will.. FAKE, FUDGE, GAME PLAY, etc.. Many things PURPOSELY done on the PC that in and of them self is not realistic.. but due to the limitations of the PC they have to be done.. A *PERFECT* example of this is that NEAR and FAR is in focus.. In real life when you focus on a distant object (bogie) the cockpit will be out of focus and visa versa.. It happens so fast and so often in our daily life that we don't even notice it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Consider a thin vertical bar that has no overlap in the binocular vision images. You will still notice them as you search beyond them,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
and you will still _naturally_ wish to move head to see with no obstructions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe!? You will *naturally* move your head when the distant object is obstructed by a thicker bar... How thick is thick when this happens.. That depends on the size and distance of the bogie... it can change from second to second as the bogie moves closer or farther away. NOTE! Now you are coming to grips with my rational for just making all the bars.. no mater how thick semi-transparent.. Even though in real life.. Thicker bars would appear solid at the centers.. BUT in that case is when your head (in real life) would *naturally* move a little left, right, up, down.. what ever it takes.. But we don't have the ability to lean left and right.. So just make them all semi-trans.. Then you would kill TWO birds with ONE stone.. You would be simulating the semi-transparent effect *AND* the lean effect.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Or not? If your idea is correct, then a cockpit with thin verticle bars that have no overlap should have none of these thin bars rendered at all....some truly transparent bars. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well YES and NO! Yes when you are looking FAR away and at a bogie.. And NO when you are looking CLOSE at the cockpit panel gauges... Problem is the PC does not know when you are looking FAR or CLOSE! So, as with the current FAKE focus all the time thing.. You would just render the cockpit bars as there are now.. Same size, color, etc.. Only they would be semi-transparent.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Or worse, any area of non~overlap should not be rendered, leaving only the overlap area to be rendered. I assume this is not what you are talking about for the single transparent bars.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, not! In that it would be a good simulation of the HUMAN EYE.. but the goal is to make a good FLIGHT SIMULATION.. A wonder woman invisible cockpit is not the answer!! It looks funky IMHO and you loose all reference points.. In a nut shell all I'm saying is keep everything as it is right now.. NO LEAN.. Just make the cockpit bars semi-trans parent.. Sort of like the clouds are now.. that part of the cloud when you 1st enter it and you can still make out the outline of the bogie.. but not see it clearly.. just a dark outline of it.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

JG301_nils
07-14-2004, 09:16 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
GOT IT__!__ Actually, that is an interesting idea you have raised....the brain is trained to ignore the transparent images unless you pay attention to them.

It doesn't work out completely though. Consider a thin vertical bar that has no overlap in the binocular vision images. You will still notice the two transparent images as you search beyond them, and even if you do not you will still _naturally_ wish to move head to see with no obstructions.

Or not? If your idea is correct, then a cockpit with thin verticle bars that have no overlap should have none of these thin bars rendered at all....some truly transparent bars. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Or worse, any area of non~overlap should not be rendered, leaving only the overlap area to be rendered--very distorted looking. I assume this is not what you are talking about for the single transparent bars.
QUOTE]

-------------
Yes, we all use this effect daily( well except for one-eyed persons), just try see your nose with both eyes open. You just see a shadow. But when you close one eye it suddenly appears quite visible ( atleast mine does, hehe) So I agree halfway, the bars should infact be semi-transparent, but i think no game maker/modeller would agree http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
-nils-

( hopefully this doesn´t start a nose-size thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, some are already clearly overmodelled http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

ASH at S-MART
07-14-2004, 09:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG301_nils:
Yes, we all use this effect daily( well except for one-eyed persons), just try see your nose with both eyes open. You just see a shadow. But when you close one eye it suddenly appears quite visible ( atleast mine does, hehe) So I agree halfway, the bars should infact be semi-transparent,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG301_nils:
but i think no game maker/modeller would agree http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Some not all.. Red Barron II some 5+ years ago did it... The only thing I dindt like about the way they did it was they did the wings and the cocpit panels.. Basically a wonder woman view.. Today there is only one sim maker donig it..

http://web.targetrabaul.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=32&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

NOTE
- Semi-transparent canopy rails return: Ki-43,

I dont know why others have not done it.. I can only guess it use to be a big hit on the fps.. But with todays 3D cards it should not be a big deal

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2004, 09:53 PM
To Luthor and SMART:

1) You have NEVER seen me post against canopy bar translucence. I have only posted against simply pretending they were never there at ALL (Wonder Woman view).

About this lean: it's a fine concept, but I'm just saying it's *unworkable*. So now we need new key commands for Lean Left a smidge, Lean right and crane neck, etc. etc. etc. Where you gonna put that? It doesn't WORK, and the sim cannot read your mind to figure out which bogie you want to "lean to see". That's why I post against this.

YES, I know in real life you would lean "a little", but as someone else also noticed is true, it's only MOVING the OBSTRUCTION. Something, sometime somewhere is going to be blocked when it's inconvenient, even with your magic, handy-dandy-lean.

Best solution: bank the damned plane. It's simple, fast, burns NO energy and usually, you were going that way anyway. Oh, and yes, real pilots DO and DID bank the plane to see better.

ASH at S-MART
07-14-2004, 11:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
To Luthor and SMART:

1) You have NEVER seen me post against canopy bar translucence. I have only posted against simply pretending they were never there at ALL (Wonder Woman view).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
About this lean: it's a fine concept,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW! First the semi-transparnt.. now this.. You have come a long way sense the last time we talked on this subject.. Welcom abord!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
but I'm just saying it's *unworkable*.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Still hung up on that little aspect? Oh well.. maybe in a few months you will see the light on that too?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
So now we need new key commands for Lean Left a smidge, Lean right and crane neck, etc. etc. etc. Where you gonna put that? It doesn't WORK,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not etc.. etc.. etc.. if implimented it would work just like the current LEAN FORWARD & LEAN BACK SHIFT-F1 key in IL2... As for smidge.. and crane neck.. no need.. a simple FIX AMOUNT of displacment would be just fine.. JUST LIKE THE CURRENT LEAN FORWARD & LEAN BACK SHIFT-F1 keys do now. But that is if you WANT A SEPERATE KEY FOR LEAN.. As I said a few months back.. and repeated in this thread you dont need an EXTRA KEY.. You could simply LINK/SLAVE it to the current LOOK LEFT LOOK RIGHT keys.. In that 90% of the time you LEAN in the direction you LOOK.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
and the sim cannot read your mind to figure out which bogie you want to "lean to see". That's why I post against this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The LEAN is indipendent of the bogie.. it is a fixed displacment that would would work just like the current LEAN FORWARD LEAN BACK SHIFT-F1 key.. It would work the same too.. if the bogie is hidden by the bar in one view.. just SHIFT-F1 and it would move the bar relitive to your POV and expose what was hidden in the priviouse view.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
YES, I know in real life you would lean "a little", but as someone else also noticed is true, it's only MOVING the OBSTRUCTION. Something, sometime somewhere is going to be blocked when it's inconvenient, even with your magic, handy-dandy-lean.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That would only be a problem if the views from one to the next DID NOT overlap.. but they do so it is not a problem. For example.. if a bogie is hidden by the bar in the forward view, a look 45 degree left along with a little LEAN would expose it. It is that simple.. But I guess you will need a few more months to realise that too. Hang in there.. there is hope for you in light of your current changes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Best solution: bank the damned plane. It's simple, fast, burns NO energy and usually, you were going that way anyway. Oh, and yes, real pilots DO and DID bank the plane to see better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true. It does burn energy... And you were doing so well.. Hange in there buddy.. I know you can do it!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

SeaFireLIV
07-15-2004, 02:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:

]Not an expert, just not as ignorant on the subject as you clearly are.

_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I`ll say one thing for someone who likes to mention the word ignorant several times you actually haven`t proven anything of your constant blagging to whether this actually works concerning the BAR in reality.

You say the bar would be practically invisible, would that not depend upon it`s distance from the pilot`s eyes? No matter how much you focus beyond if the bar isn`t close enough, well, it will still be a clear obstruction, requiring one to lean I ASSUME.

But like I said clearly before I am honest enough to admit I am no expert, unlike you who`s deluded enough (and ignorant enough) to think he is.

Big mouthed texts trying to brow beat everyone with your particular brand of rude high pitched shouting does not actually prove you correct. Long useless texts such as yours are simply a poor excuse to try and look clever while covering your own actual ignorance.

Oh, and CAN IT with the stupid `Not true` term.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Yakgirlgo.jpg
Time to Escape!

Want to see more? go here: http://seafire.dreyermachine.com/
(Fantasy sections for mature viewers only).

Black Sheep
07-15-2004, 06:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:

Best solution: bank the damned plane. It's simple, fast, burns NO energy and usually, you were going that way anyway. Oh, and yes, real pilots DO and DID bank the plane to see better.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blimey.

I'm in full agreement with Stiglr; best way to see what's around you is to bank and waggle the plane around, though I do think you lose a trivial amount of energy.

Cross couple the controls and you can even see what's below your nose, a technique used in real life.

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/ilsigs/Nachtjaeger.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
07-15-2004, 09:49 AM
Moo.Cow:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>best way to see what's around you is to bank and waggle the plane around,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not True http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The gunsight view toggle we have now is the most efficient way to see around cockpit bars--at least on some planes--as the gunsight view movement in German planes has a motion component to the right--moving you closer to the right bars and that doesn't help see around them.

But a quick toggle forward and sideways, would be the most efficient method (ignore Stiglr cos if Oleg did full head movement in these two dimensions then TargetWare would look, and feel, really inferior and Stiglr knows this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) Now to see around more Extreme obstructions like below your wing or behind your tail then you move the plane around. Ignore the warnings about extra needed head controls as one would ignore predictions made by Leading Experts such as Bill Gates.

And all of my bluster for binocular vision is unneeded cos head movement is far more important. Of course when you focus inside the cockpit, at the instruments say, then the bars will be a single solid image just as we have now.

Just thinking that I really enjoy the full solid bars--especially in the Fb109 Emails and Females, and having them partially see-through naked would look not as good (as well as look arcade).

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Black Sheep
07-15-2004, 10:07 AM
My apologies, I should have made myself clearer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What I meant was that banking the plane was the best way to see arund you in conjunction with moving the view around the cockpit - the former allows you to see what's hiding beneath the wings and the nose and gives you a true picture of what's around.

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/ilsigs/Nachtjaeger.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
07-15-2004, 12:29 PM
Yes, you bank the wings to see under the wings, you kick the rudder to see behind your rudder, you move your head to see behind a cockpit bar. Makes sense.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Wallstein
07-15-2004, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:

"---What SHOULD be done is to make the canopy STRUTS (ie the metal bars that hold the glass) semi transparent.. By semi tranparent I mean they still have the same shape, size and color.. but like a cloud.. you can KIND OF SEE though them. That would not only SIMULATE how the human EYE(S) work.. But it would MAKE up for some of the simulations limitaions.---"

"---It is too late for IL2.. And most likly too late for PF.. But I hope they can do it for BoB.---"

_ASH HOUSEWARES_ http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav__
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for saying that (above mentioned). This subject is a difficult one (as we have seen during the, not just months, but one can say today, during the years!) in online as well as offline and here at the forum. And because I cannot tell anybody what to do, I have no ideas, no knowledge about programming etc, I can only fly (my favorite being Bf-109), suffer a bit because of the restrictions of the view, read these lines you people write and...wait... and hope!

For I believe, that there must be a way to solve this cockpit problem. And I also believe that the more (mature) people deal with all kind of solutions and write about their thoughts, the better our gaming will be. All kind of improvements have taken place since the early days of the IL-2 and I hope and believe, that Oleg and his highly skilled co-workers will heed us as they have done so far.

I think and I hope, too, that IL-Stormovik as a whole will remain as a higly appreciated WWII combatflying simulator for the years to come. I am also quite sure, that they will rework large parts of this marvellous game; perhaps in two-three years! Think about the Microsoft Flight Simulator! They have worked for years with it at gained a top positions amongst the simulators. I think and hope that something like that would happen with Oleg Maddox´s&Team´s work as well. And if/as that turnes out to happen, all the MATURE THOUGHTS presented here in these forums will be worth of much!

So, as a conclusion I`ll remain keeping my thumbs up for the semi-transparent parts of the cockpits. There are still more of problems, like the distance of the view etc, but they are not dealed with in this discussion.

Let´s all enjoy the game!
Wallstein

JG301_nils
07-15-2004, 05:24 PM
I guess no one of you have a car, since you haven´t noticed that the cockpit struts of a cars cockpit renders "invisible" when you drive, I mean one don´t really notice then, do you? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ASH at S-MART
07-15-2004, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moo.Cow:
Blimey.

I'm in full agreement with Stiglr; best way to see what's around you is to bank and waggle the plane around,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes it is the best way to do it in this simulation.. Because we have no other choice.. It is defintally not the best way to do it in real life though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moo.Cow:
though I do think you lose a trivial amount of energy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Trivial.. unitl you need it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moo.Cow:
Cross couple the controls and you can even see what's below your nose, a technique used in real life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not talking about things blocked by the wings, nose, cockpit panel, etc.. talking about when things are blocked by the canopy bars.. Or corse you would have to manuver the plane to maintain sight of a bogie as it goes behind and under your aircraft.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-15-2004, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Well, I`ll say one thing for someone who likes to mention the word ignorant several times<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Keep in mind ignorant is not a bad word.. unless you are ignorant of the word ignorant

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
you actually haven`t proven anything of your constant blagging to whether this actually works concerning the BAR in reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.. I have proven it to the people who understand how the human eye(s) work.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
You say the bar would be practically invisible, would that not depend upon it`s distance from the pilot`s eyes? No matter how much you focus beyond if the bar isn`t close enough, well, it will still be a clear obstruction, requiring one to lean I ASSUME.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You assume correctly, but that is not all that it depends on.. It depends on how thick said bar is... In light of the fact that most cockpits are cramped.. meaning they are within arms length.. Your concern is not that much of a concern. As for LEAN.. Im all for it.. But you dont need it if you just make the bars uniformally semi-transparent.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
But like I said clearly before I am honest enough to admit I am no expert, unlike you who`s deluded enough (and ignorant enough) to think he is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of me saying Im not an experte did you not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Big mouthed texts trying to brow beat everyone with your particular brand of rude high pitched shouting does not actually prove you correct.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. but in this case I am.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Long useless texts such as yours are simply a poor excuse to try and look clever while covering your own actual ignorance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually.. in that some read it and GET IT and your read it and DONT GET IT.. Doesnt that say more about YOU then MY TEXT?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Oh, and CAN IT with the stupid `Not true` term.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-15-2004, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wallstein:
Thank you for saying that (above mentioned). This subject is a difficult one (as we have seen during the, not just months, but one can say today, during the years!) in online as well as offline and here at the forum. And because I cannot tell anybody what to do, I have no ideas, no knowledge about programming etc, I can only fly (my favorite being Bf-109), suffer a bit because of the restrictions of the view, read these lines you people write and...wait... and hope!

For I believe, that there must be a way to solve this cockpit problem. And I also believe that the more (mature) people deal with all kind of solutions and write about their thoughts, the better our gaming will be. All kind of improvements have taken place since the early days of the IL-2 and I hope and believe, that Oleg and his highly skilled co-workers will heed us as they have done so far.

I think and I hope, too, that IL-Stormovik as a whole will remain as a higly appreciated WWII combatflying simulator for the years to come. I am also quite sure, that they will rework large parts of this marvellous game; perhaps in two-three years! Think about the Microsoft Flight Simulator! They have worked for years with it at gained a top positions amongst the simulators. I think and hope that something like that would happen with Oleg Maddox´s&Team´s work as well. And if/as that turnes out to happen, all the MATURE THOUGHTS presented here in these forums will be worth of much!

So, as a conclusion I`ll remain keeping my thumbs up for the semi-transparent parts of the cockpits. There are still more of problems, like the distance of the view etc, but they are not dealed with in this discussion.

Let´s all enjoy the game!
Wallstein<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No problem! Im just glad to see that some of the folks here GET IT! Some just take longer than others.. But some never will.. We can only hope that MOST will.. Because that is when people will start talking about it more and the game makers will incorperate it! Keeping fingers crossed! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-15-2004, 07:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG301_nils:
I guess no one of you have a car, since you haven´t noticed that the cockpit struts of a cars cockpit renders "invisible" when you drive, I mean one don´t really notice then, do you? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>On that note.. A REAL GOOD TEST thus a REAL GOOD WAY TO PROVE THIS to yourself is to take a BIG PIECE OF DUCK TAPE.. Run it right down the CENTER of the drivers side windshield.. Kind of like the P47 razor back cockpit in the game. Then drive around town and try to read the car in front of you licens plate.. Try it at different distances.. Guess what.. you will be able to read them! Unless you have bad eyes and could not read them before the tape! It does not improve your vission! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
07-15-2004, 08:07 PM
Wallstein:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I can only fly (my favorite being Bf-109), suffer a bit because of the restrictions of the view, read these lines you people write and...wait... and hope!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Warning:: This is an admission of wanting an Arcade game with see through canopy parts. Real life pilots had to move their heads during a dogfight. After I~16, my fave FB cockpit is Fb109 Email and I too suffer from restrictions of view, as did real life Email pilots. Indeed, the solid canopy bars are what gives me the feeling that flying the Email is like sitting in a box crate packed with explosive energy waiting, itching, to be releaced upon the enemy.

The Issue:: Semi transparent bars are less realistic than what we have now, they are no "compromise" at all for head movement, and they are an Arcade idea that do NOT even try to offer a "compromise" model of head movement. True head movement is the only way to deal with seeing around canopy bars, as in real life. Oleg already can do gunsight view head movement, there is no reason he cannot do forward/back and sideways head movement in his future Sims, thus exposing the fraudulent argument that head movement is "too difficult" to implement.

bizzare...
Wallstein:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think and I hope, too, that IL-Stormovik as a whole will remain as a higly appreciated WWII combatflying simulator for the years to come. I am also quite sure, that they will rework large parts of this marvellous game; perhaps in two-three years! Think about the Microsoft Flight Simulator!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who does not hope this? A bizzare, and very slippery, post calling for the dumbing down of FB to Microsoft standards.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ASH at S-MART
07-15-2004, 09:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Warning:: This is an admission of wanting an Arcade game with see through canopy parts. Real life pilots had to move their heads during a dogfight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Warning:: This is an example of someone who does not understand that a simulation has limitations commenting on someone who does realize a simulation has limitations.. Like the ability to LEAN in real life and NOT being able to LEAN in the simulation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
After I~16, my fave FB cockpit is Fb109 Email and I too suffer from restrictions of view, as did real life Email pilots. Indeed, the solid canopy bars are what gives me the feeling that flying the Email is like sitting in a box crate packed with explosive energy waiting, itching, to be releaced upon the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And semi-transparent cockpit bars would NOT make the Email feel less cramped.. The size, shape, location and color of the cockpit bars would still be there as before... Only like a dark pair of sunglasses in a dark room you would still be able to see through them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
__The Issue::__ Semi transparent bars are less realistic than what we have now,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not True.. Unless you are a cyclops.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
they are no "compromise" at all for head movement, and they are an Arcade idea that do NOT even try to offer a "compromise" model of head movement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not True.. In light of the fact that we are simulating a real 360? 3D world on a 60? 2D 21" screen it is a perfect compromise.. Especially when you consider the fact that most people still have to manipulate their eye moments via a HAT, MOUSE or KEYBOARD.. Even with TrakIR it is a compromise.. So to say that semi-transparent cockpit bars is not a good compromise for how the human eye(s) work and the inability to lean in the simulation is silly at best

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
True head movement is the only way to deal with seeing around canopy bars, as in real life. Oleg already can do gunsight view head movement, there is no reason he cannot do forward/back and sideways head movement in his future Sims, thus exposing the fraudulent argument that head movement is "too difficult" to implement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Note that this is a perfect case of "easier said than done" As I and others have pointed out in the past.. The 3D modelers here have made it clear that to do LEAN left and LEAN right would require a lot more ART WORK.. Thus taking more time and money to develop ONE AIRCRAFT. Making the uniformly semi-transparent for thick and thin cockpit bars would kill two birds with one stone.. One you would not have to do extra art work and Two it actually mimic's how the human eye(s) work with regards to thin solid objects.. Which for the most part is what most cockpit bars are.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Who __does not__ hope this? A bizzare, and very slippery, post calling for the dumbing down of FB to Microsoft standards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Warning:: This is a weak attempt to discredit the poster by re-wording what he said to try and promote the responders goals

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
07-15-2004, 09:33 PM
mmm I see. If the cockpit modders are saying this, then I am all for anything that increases the number of Flyable planes. But leaving the canopy bars as solid is more realistic--and more simple--than the see through idea, so they should just leave things as they are. We won't come to agreement here. Anyway, Oleg is already doing "extra" art work with the upgraded requirements for BoB cockpits.

We shall talk again about the current [German] sideways moving gunsight view, and talk again, as long as is needed...

Lois_Lane:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Oleg already can do gunsight view head movement, there is no reason he cannot do forward/back and sideways head movement in his future Sims.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We agree on one point--Microsoft can do the see~through canopy thing.

Oleg can do the real thing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LEXX_Luthor
07-15-2004, 09:55 PM
~ OKAY ~

I am thinking about this now...

I think you mentioned this before--not being able to detect distant planes through the bars--and it made alot of sense. If the transparency is just barely implemented, you know, you won't be able to notice single pixels or small objects through the canopy obstructions, but you will be able to make out large objects like the nearby plane you are dogfighting against, then I could go along with this. But the transparency must be just barely implemented--the canopy bars must still be "in your face" but you can see apparently larger objects. Just be careful that the transparency is not so overdone that the canopy bars are no longer a source of Whining as they were to real life pilots 60 years ago. The bars should still appear solid enough to invoke historically correct Whining for bubble canopies, but still allow you to follow a close plane with no head movement.

This could be a compromise if the modders cannot do head movement. And you had said it long ago.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LEXX_Luthor
07-15-2004, 10:02 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

But if I know Oleg, the transparency will be either overdone (like muzzle flash) or underdone (like single pixel targets at modern 1600x1200 resolutions http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif ). A user or server transparency setting would be nice. Now we are talking. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ASH at S-MART
07-15-2004, 10:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
~ OKAY ~

I am thinking about this now...

I think you mentioned this before--not being able to detect distant planes through the bars--and it made alot of sense. If the transparency is just _barely_ implemented, you know, you won't be able to notice single pixels or small objects through the canopy obstructions, but you will be able to make out large objects like the nearby plane you are dogfighting against,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>EXACTALLY! I wish I had a good picture of this.. In that I just knew where I was saying "semi-transparent" eveyone was thinking "crystal-clear" even though I tried to explain it in many ways.. clouds.. sunglasses.. etc.. But now I think you understand.. because you are now saying what I said.. DARK! So dark that you could NOT see a dot off in the distance.. THUS.. if your not moving around.. checking six.. and scannig the skys you wont see that dot behind the bar.. SO DARK that when nothing is behind the bar.. you wont even notice that they are semi-transparent.. i.e. not see the blue sky mixxing in the the gray bar.. But LIGHT ENOUGH that when you locked in a DF close up you will be able to make out the outline of an aircraft and notice when it reverses and or turns while behind a cockpit bar.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
then I could go along with this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>GROOVY!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
But the transparency must be just barely implemented--the canopy bars must still be "in your face" but you can see apparently larger objects. Just be careful that the transparency is not so overdone that the canopy bars are no longer a source of Whining as they were to real life pilots 60 years ago. The bars should still appear solid enough to invoke historically correct Whining for bubble canopies, but still allow you to follow a close plane with no head movement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>EXACTALLY! Dark.. so dark it's still requires you to use good SA tatics for far off objects... Like a dark pair of sunglasses in a dark room.. like a plan entering a cloud.. like your gama turned way down for that part of the screen.. Oh heck.. you now know what I mean! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
This could be a compromise __if__ the modders cannot do head movement. And you had said it long ago.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger.. Im all for LEAN!! Would love the option.. And what stiglr says about the extra control and blockage is all wrong.. But I am just taking into account what the 3D guys say.. If what they say is true.. Then semi trans is a good comp.. Even if they add LEAN I still think semi-trans is a good thing.. But real thick bars like in the 109 and 190 should be solid near the center.. Because they now have the ability to lean.. But that will be a few years down the road

ASH at S-MART
07-15-2004, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

But if I know Oleg, the transparency will be either overdone (like muzzle flash) or underdone (like single pixel targets at modern 1600x1200 resolutions http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif ). A user or server transparency setting would be nice. Now we are talking. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is posiable.. It would be nice to have a user setting.. And also nice for the HOST to ctrl the amount of that setting so everyone is on the same sheet of music.. Just another realise (ie full dificult) setting.. In that no mater what.. Someone wont like it.. As with all new features.. It will take years for the extream to become the norm.. So make it an option to not offend the slow learners! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
07-15-2004, 10:24 PM
I was thinking that some want to be able to see through the bars but have the bars just barely rendered so they can claim to have cockpit on--say a 10% bar render. A true ghost bar. Instead we can agree on 90% solid bars with a barely rendered ghost image of what lies beyond the bar--effectively denying the ability to detect far objects through the bar yet allowing one to follow a nearby plane in a dogfight.

Watch your language. Transparencies can't always be "dark" because some canopy bars are light colour (MiG~3 for example) and not dark colour. I suggest the word "deep" instead.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LEXX_Luthor
07-15-2004, 10:33 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif On the other hand, I am still worried that this transparency idea will negate the historical advantage of bubble canopies.

The nice thing about using head movement to see behind bars is that the bubble canopy jocks have it easy, and that is historically correct, but the barred canopy jocks can still see behind the bars but must use alot of head movement controls just like real pilots had to use excessive head movement leading to much Whining for bubble canopies.

Head movement is still the best way to go for this.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ASH at S-MART
07-15-2004, 10:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif On the other hand, I am still worried that this transparency idea will negate the historical advantage of bubble canopies.

The nice thing about using head movement to see behind bars is that the bubble canopy jocks have it easy, and that is historically correct, but the barred canopy jocks _can still see behind the bars_ but must use alot of head movement controls just like real pilots had to use excessive head movement leading to much Whining for bubble canopies.

Head movement is still the best way to go for this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No.. The bubble canopy aircraft will still have a historical adv in that they will see that dot at long distances.. Where an aircraft with alot of canopy bars might not. Once you spot them and they are up close.. Your human eyes will not be bothered by the bars.. Half the battle is FINDING the enmy.. Once they have been spoted.. Your eyes will be focused on them.. And the bars will NOT be that noticable.. ie at close range the bubble canopy and non-bubble canopy are nearly equal when you consider that in real life you could simply mover your head AND have human eyes. Also note the REAL advantage of the bubble canopys was the improved SIX view due to the cut down fulsalages.. The bars too.. but the SIX view was the real adv.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
07-15-2004, 10:52 PM
We disagree. The bubble canopy allowed real pilots to not only detect long range targets without moving the head, but allowed them to follow close dogfight targets without moving the head.

However, your point is well made that detection is important too, and with a "deep" or minimal transparency idea, the bubble canopies would still have an overall advantage, but just not the full advantage they did have.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ASH at S-MART
07-15-2004, 11:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
We disagree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Allways starts off like that! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The bubble canopy allowed real pilots to not only detect long range targets without moving the head, but allowed them to follow close dogfight targets without moving the head.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But when they are up close you wouldnt have to move your head because your eyes would be focused on the bogie.. ie FAR not NEAR so the NEAR cockpit bars would not bother you view much if any.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
However, your point is well made that detection is important too, and with a "deep" or minimal transparency idea, the bubble canopies would still have an overall advantage, but just not the full advantage they did have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We are in agreement for the most part.. At far distances the bubble would have the adv in the sim if semi-trans was implimented because it would be able to see the dot.. At REAL CLOSE it would not mater bubble or not.. By real close I mean bogie too big to be hidden behind a bar.. But there is a point at the mid range where a bogie would be hidden by a bar... There the bubble would still have a little adv.. in that it would see it clearly.. vs. a DARK PAIR of SUNGLASSES where you have to look hard to make out the outline.. So in all those cases the bubble would still have the adv where it did historically.. But the real advantage of the bubble was the improved SIX view due to the cut down fusalages.. That adv they would still have over the non-bubble because the REAR PANEL would not be semi-trans like a cockpit bar.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
07-15-2004, 11:34 PM
We agree.

Although a "near" target can still completely be obsucred behind a bar, also depending on bar size, target distance, and target size.

Also, even bubble canopies had bars up front above where the canopy meets windscreen, and this is the most critical bar for dogfighting, thus requiring the bubble jock to move head too, from time to time.

Head movement is the way to go here...if the modders can do it, as they do now for German combined sideways and forward gunsight view.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ASH at S-MART
07-15-2004, 11:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
We agree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Given enough time we do! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Although a "near" target can still completely be obsucred behind a bar, also depending on bar size, target distance, and target size.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your definition of NEAR is my definition of MID.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Also, even bubble canopies had bars up front above where the canopy meets windscreen, and this is the most critical bar for dogfighting, thus requiring the bubble jock to move head too, from time to time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No.. it is critical while scanning the skys for distant targets to focus on.. But once you spot them.. you automaticly focus on them.. And in doing so focus FAR AWAY! Thus those CLOSE UP BARS would NOT be noticed (ie seen) while looking FAR AWAY.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Head movement is the way to go here... if the modders can do it, as they do now for German combined sideways and forward gunsight view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Be neat.. but not necessary, and would not remove the need to simulate how the eyes work for solid objects.. The only time in real life you would HAVE TO move your head is for those bars that are inline with your eyes.. That horzontail case that RBJ alluided too.. But by just making all the bars uniformally semi-trans it would account for both head movment and how your eyes work

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
07-16-2004, 02:45 AM
ASH:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The only time in real life you would HAVE TO move your head is for those bars that are inline with your eyes.. That horzontail case that RBJ alluided too..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not True http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif If even the vertical bars are thick enough, then neither eye will see beyond the bar. I further believe that a pilot, while searching, will shift slightly to see around a bar with both eyes. I know its alot of work for both pilots and flight simmers, and it was not liked by many real life pilots. But the pilots that lived shifted and moved in their seats to see.

Just flying rear gunner in Stuka, and you can move your head in three dimensions by combining gun mouse and the normal view controls. 3D head movement is possible. I will say that transparent bars can be skipped over and we can goto at least 2D head movement (forward and sideways). Leave the transparent bar "compromise" for the inferior flight sims.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

starfighter1
07-16-2004, 02:46 AM
hi,
I'm just waiting for the next bull**** 'wrong' forward and virtual pilots cockpit views (including the gunside/gyroscope design view)and more overmodelled struts in the next update planes in PF.
I guess few chances to fix this at all with this buggy 'gnomish view')camera view game engine in the next weeks.
2 years lost of fix main bugs at nearly all types of planes.

It's time for better game engine or a reprogramming of this old IL-2/FB engine in this cases.

It's a schame:.. lot of nice design works to many panels indeed... but no optimum of virtual pilots view near to real things...

meanwhile.. I've the bad feeling that this developer and publisher is only interest to scoop quick dollar with this old game engine than to fix main mistakes of virtual pilots view ...

Anyway: arcade views are out and there are no plausible objective arguments that the designers/developer should not patch/fix it in the running game or in the next Addons..

alarmer
07-16-2004, 03:18 AM
Iam allrdy preparring for the BoB gnome FW190 pilots. If this happens my face will look exactly like this --&gt; http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/354.gif

The cockpits are wonderful looking make no mistake, the sim just lacks somekinda compromise system or better viewing system to compensate these accurate cockpit bars,struts you name it.

Agamemnon22
07-16-2004, 09:11 AM
I have a slightly different idea. As opposed to making the bars transparent, we could have outlines of planes behind the bar show through. It's a little hard to explain, but those who have played Fallout know what I mean. Just an outline of the plane that shows only out to a certain distance. I don't mean a generic outline on a billboard though. The actual outline of that plane from that angle. The advantage is that first of all the distance is tunable like icons; secondly, there is still a distadvantage due to the bars in that one cannot the see the target's markings, requiring head movement and maneuvering. Of course it may be an immersion killer to have outlines floating around the cockpit, but like I said if it can be tuned then it can be turned off for those who don't like it.

Just thinking outloud I guess..

ASH at S-MART
07-16-2004, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Not True http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif If even the vertical bars are thick enough, then neither eye will see beyond the bar.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your are correct.. If the vertical bars are really REALKY thick.. or thin and far away.. But in 99.9% of the real aircraft FIGHTERS that is not the case.. So it would not be true for the topic at hand.. ie the RULE not the EXCEPTIONS

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I further believe that a pilot, while searching, will shift slightly to see around a bar with both eyes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In REAL LIFE yes! Because before you spot the dot.. ie searching your eyes are not really focused.. nor trianglated on the dot.. So they could be wandering from NEAR and FAR targets.. Thus requring you to look around a bar because you are not focused on something beyond it.. But onces you focus on a distant object you will see right through those bars (that are vert to you eyes) as if they were not even there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I know its alot of work for both pilots and flight simmers,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. so much so for real pilots in WWI that they wore silk scarfs to keep thier necks from getting rubbed raw by thier color.. It is even harder for the sim pilot.. In that they dont make silk scarfs for your HAT Thumb! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
and it was not liked by many real life pilots. But the pilots that lived shifted and moved in their seats to see.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In REAL LIFE yes.. I agree.. BUT IN LIGHT OF THE FACT that we dont have the ability to LEAN.. making the bars uniformally semi-trans through and through would be a good comp.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Just flying rear gunner in Stuka, and you can move your head in three dimensions by combining gun mouse and the normal view controls. 3D head movement is possible. I will say that transparent bars can be skipped over and we can goto at least 2D head movement (forward and sideways). Leave the transparent bar "compromise" for the inferior flight sims.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If we had the ability to LEAN it would be nice.. But we dont.. And even if we did it would still be realistic to have semi-trans cockpit bars.. they are not a compromise.. they are real in how your eyes work. The only compromise I have alluded to is to make the THICK cockpit bars semi-trans through and through as aposed to solid near the center as a compromise for not being able to LEAN. Adding the ability to LEAN is important for TWO reasons.. 1) To see around the bars that are horzontail and to 2) EXPAND your viewing area! The ability to LEAN OUT PAST the body a little to increase your viewing area like one can do in REAL LIFE in a bubble type canopy on a P51 P47 is not apreciated in this sim because we can NOT LEAN to increase our viewing area.. They have the same viewing area as a norma FLAT GLASS cockpit.. Except for the improved rear view due to some of the cokpit being removed. Both semi-trans cockpit bars and the ability to LEAN enable you to see through/around solid cockpit bars.. But the ABILITY to LEAN real comes into play for bubble type canopys and aircraft with roomie cockpits (ie not Spits or 109s) where you can twist your body around and press your face up on the glass to increase your viewing area.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-16-2004, 09:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Agamemnon22:
I have a slightly different idea. As opposed to making the bars transparent, we could have outlines of planes behind the bar show through. It's a little hard to explain, but those who have played Fallout know what I mean. Just an outline of the plane that shows only out to a certain distance. I don't mean a generic outline on a billboard though. The actual outline of that plane from that angle. The advantage is that first of all the distance is tunable like icons; secondly, there is still a distadvantage due to the bars in that one cannot the see the target's markings, requiring head movement and maneuvering. Of course it may be an immersion killer to have outlines floating around the cockpit, but like I said if it can be tuned then it can be turned off for those who don't like it.

Just thinking outloud I guess..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is very close to what I am talking about.. Keep in mind when I say semi-transparent I mean the cockpit bar is still there.. with all it's color and it would have priority over what is behind it.. But, like with the clouds, you could kind of see through it and make out the outline of the aircraft behind it.. But a distant dot would not be visable.. This would simulate REAL LIFE very well.. I realise your talking about a drawn outline that is totally seperate from the current artwork.. Much like the green PADLOCK box that you can see through the cokpit bars now.. but more of an outline of the aircraft.. I dont know if it would be a immersion killer.. But I would take it over what we have now.. withc is nothing! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-16-2004, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
I'm just waiting for the next bull**** 'wrong' forward and virtual pilots cockpit views (including the gunside/gyroscope design view)and more overmodelled struts in the next update planes in PF.
I guess few chances to fix this at all with this buggy 'gnomish view')camera view game engine in the next weeks.
2 years lost of fix main bugs at nearly all types of planes.

It's time for better game engine or a reprogramming of this old IL-2/FB engine in this cases.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh! It still has alot of life left in it IMHO. In a perfect world where $ grows on trees and PC run at the speed of light and people dont mind working for free we could have new and better game engines every day of the week.. But here in the real world people got to eat.. In light of the fact that the IL2 engine was years ahead of it's time it is just now seeing other sims that can match it in art work.. And even if they didnt change one thing and came out with PF it would still be better than any other WWII flight sim on the shelf today.. and maybe even a year from now.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
It's a schame:.. lot of nice design works to many panels indeed... but no optimum of virtual pilots view near to real things...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. very true.. but to be fair.. Name one sim that does a better job of it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
meanwhile.. I've the bad feeling that this developer and publisher is only interest to scoop quick dollar with this old game engine than to fix main mistakes of virtual pilots view ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. I just looked behind me and I didnt see anyone holding a gun to my head to buy it.. How about you? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Anyway: arcade views are out and there are no plausible objective arguments that the designers/developer should not patch/fix it in the running game or in the next Addons..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In a perfect world you are correct.. But here in the real wold where the sky is blue and the trees only have leafs on them.. well you would be wrong. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

starfighter1
07-16-2004, 11:35 AM
hi,
at ASH_SMART

OK: I guess where is a will there is a way! Or ?

Anyway: we need also this codes/interface to a EPIC Card + homebuild cockpit
+ beamer/visionstation ...
who is talking about best or 'wrong' programmed/designed cockpits and views than anymore ?

I guess nearly all this 'high class arcade simers', 'Igor and Jonny Joysticks' , who believe all of this developer phrases and his designers comments and even their apologetically speakers in the forums arround here ?

we need a real progress in this case of design of combatsims...
in current market/genre this 'monucular' developer is a king under the rest of blinds ..

But: there's none so blind as those who will not see

my two cents to this
thx end and out

LEXX_Luthor
07-16-2004, 04:38 PM
ASH:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In REAL LIFE yes.. I agree.. BUT IN LIGHT OF THE FACT that we dont have the ability to LEAN.. making the bars uniformally semi-trans through and through would be a good comp.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We agree that we need head movement or "lean" above all else in future flight sims.

In LIGHT OF THE FACT that we don't have the ability to see through semi~transparent cockpit bars...we need head movement. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Microsoft can use the bar method. Oleg can do the head movement. The bar method is less a "compromise" than a temporary quick fix, like a Microsoft Patch. We can discuss again the German gunsight view which moves forward and sideways.

Aggy last page had a great idea though if the cockpit Modders can't do head movement. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ASH at S-MART
07-16-2004, 06:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
We agree that we need head movement or "lean" above all else in future flight sims.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. no actually I think I have been pretty clear that I think it would be neat to have LEAN.. But not necessary if semi-transpart cockpits bars are implmented. But I do agree that future sims should have at least one or the other or both.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
In LIGHT OF THE FACT that we don't have the ability to see through semi~transparent cockpit bars...we need head movement. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think you ment to say in light of the fact we dont have the ability to see through SOLID cockpit bars? As it is now in IL2. At this point I would be happy with either LEAN or SEMI-TRANS in that it is better then what we have now.. NOTHING! Early on I pointed out that 3D artest have said doing LEAN means much more art work.. More work means more time and money spent on doing one cockpit.. Which will most likly mean we will have less aircraft to fly. That is why I *think* the semi-transparent route is the way to go.. You dont have to do anymore art work then they currently do. That and you can account for the lack of LEAN by simply making the thick bars uniformaly transparet all the way through.. Instead of sold near center as they would be in real life.. ie the comprimise.. It saves art work, and you kill two birds with one stone.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Microsoft can use the bar method. Oleg can do the head movement. The bar method is less a "compromise" than a temporary quick fix, like a Microsoft Patch. We can discuss again the German gunsight view which moves forward and sideways.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You say that as if semi-transparentcy is some sort of fake effect? It is not, it is how the human eyes work. How soon they forget! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Aggy last page had a great idea though if the cockpit Modders can't do head movement. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just to be clear.. I would not turn down LEAN if they gave it to us.. I just think in baby steps.. In light of it taking more time and money to draw the cockpit for head movments (ie lean) I think the natural next step is to do the REALISTIC semi-transparet cockpit bars.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-16-2004, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
at ASH_SMART

OK: I guess where is a will there is a way! Or ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Anyway: we need also this codes/interface to a EPIC Card + homebuild cockpit
+ beamer/visionstation ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
who is talking about best or 'wrong' programmed/designed cockpits and views than anymore ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Here is a link to a good topic on cockpit views

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=325103835&r=411106745#411106745

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
I guess nearly all this 'high class arcade simers', 'Igor and Jonny Joysticks' , who believe all of this developer phrases and his designers comments and even their apologetically speakers in the forums arround here ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
we need a real progress in this case of design of combatsims...
in current market/genre this 'monucular' developer is a king under the rest of blinds ..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well the limitaion is the PC not the sim developers.. There is only so much you can do with a 21" monitor. It is that simple.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
But: there's none so blind as those who will not see<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dont be too hard on yourself.. Some of these topics take time to get up to speed on.. You will see it.. Just hang in there

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
my two cents to this
thx end and out<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>and some change left over

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

starfighter1
07-17-2004, 03:32 AM
hi,
sorry.. ASH_SMART .. meanwhile, me and some more here arround in this forum would prefere the discussion with the designers(also third party) of the developer or O.M. himself ... I guess this forum is called ORR ...

Next: the limitation is not the pc at all ... because this developer is using 'old wine in new bottles' by design of the camera view/gunsight view..pilots height of view (call it the 'gnomish view')
example in some cases: LockOn(zoom down to instruments view snap to panel from above pilots view /natural head moving view at combat fight) + Jane's WWII (featurehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.giflayer is able to adjust the pilots seat in height/ not best programmed in case of problems in parallel gun viewing but a correct way at that time...years ago! )

Last:if use of 'cooly hat' or 'Track IR' the virtual player is limited by the 'gnomish view and some overmodelled struts/bars in forward and surround view in many planes... far away of 'near to real things' and indeed not in a homebuild cockpit
(just a link: http://www.mikesflightdeck.com/simpit_links.htm

there was and is a chance to fix some bad/'wrong' views and overmodelled struts(bars ) as FW-190 and many more red+blue fighters..some with few problems some with more ...

OK: let's wait the first pics or demo of BoB and we will see if the developer/desighners are on a progressive way to PC-desktop systems....

by the way : lets wait for the next pics of late types of F4 Corsair in forward + surround views of this combat bird and some of the PF fans will wake up soon...



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
at ASH_SMART

[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
we need a real progress in this case of design of combatsims...
in current market/genre this 'monucular' developer is a king under the rest of blinds ..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well the limitaion is the PC not the sim developers.. There is only so much you can do with a 21" monitor. It is that simple.

Sturm_Williger
07-17-2004, 07:54 AM
To refer back to a point made about 3 pages ago - I saw a Zero in the War Museum at the Domain in Auckland last year. Anyone here live in New Zealand ? Perhaps they could ask to get a pic or two from inside the cockpit - then we'd know.

( Applies to anywhere there might be a Zero in a museum ) - 'course I don't know which model it was ( late war, methinks ).

Still, presumably Oleg and his team use actual pictures to work from ? Then I can't see how he can get it very wrong.

MetalG.
07-17-2004, 10:37 AM
Sturm,
As far as I know the cockpits of the Zeros were all pretty much the same basic design (struts). So the version probably won't matter much.

ASH at S-MART
07-17-2004, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
sorry.. ASH_SMART ..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No problem

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
meanwhile, me and some more here arround in this forum would prefere the discussion with the designers(also third party) of the developer or O.M. himself ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good luck!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
I guess this forum is called ORR ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Guess again! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Next: the limitation is not the pc at all ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, the PC is the limitation.. Keep in mind that statement of mine was with regards to your statement.. i.e.

"we need a real progress in this case of design of combatsims... in current market/genre this 'monucular' developer is a king under the rest of blinds

Where you implied there has been no progress.. My point is the progress is limited by the fact we are trying to represent a real 3D world with 120? FOV on a 2D 21" monitor with only about 60? FOV. Even if LEAN and SEMI-TRANSPARENT cockpit bars were added today.. it would be a FAR CRY from what we see in the real world. Hence the limitation I alluded to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
because this developer is using 'old wine in new bottles' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>News flash... IL2 is NOT the first program to reuse and existing engine

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
by design of the camera view/gunsight view..pilots height of view (call it the 'gnomish view')<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not sure what you mean here.. But Ill take a guess at it.. if by camera view you mean 2D view.. Well there is not much they can do about that.. I'm sure their market research has shown that a very small % of people have or would buy 3D hardware.. Maybe in the near future.. But the money can be better spent then catering to a small group of people out there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
example in some cases: LockOn(zoom down to instruments view snap to panel from above pilots view /natural head moving view at combat fight)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have lock on and the ZOOM is actually kind of LAME in comparison to IL2's zoom. In that all lock on's zoom does is resize the existing picture.. i.e. the cockpit frames do not move relative to the outside world.. This it is NOT A LEAN FORWARD/BACKWARD.. Where as IL2's zoom does and therefore simulates a LEAN FORWARD/BACKWARD. As for natural head moving.. I have not tried that yet.. Does it LEAN in anyway? I just noticed that option last night while reprogramming my JS.. I assumed it was so sort of padlock option.. In that I have TrackIR I didn't bother to play with it. Ill give it a try today.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
+ Jane's WWII (featurehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.giflayer is able to adjust the pilots seat in height/ not best programmed in case of problems in parallel gun viewing but a correct way at that time...years ago! )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, there have been some sims in the past that tried to deal with it.. But WWII fighters POV adj was not meant for real time usage.. i.e. real time LEAN.. It is meant to adj the view to your liking.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Last:if use of 'cooly hat' or 'Track IR' the virtual player is limited by the 'gnomish view and some overmodelled struts/bars in forward and surround view in many planes... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You say that as if there is another choice? Are you trying to say if I use the MOUSE or KEYBOARD in IL2 that I have the ability to LEAN left or right? If so, please tell me how because as far as I can tell that is not true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
far away of 'near to real things' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your good at finding problems.. And pointing out the differences between the real 3D? 120FOV world vs. the 2D? 60FOV world.. But you have yet to give ONE EXAMPLE of something NEW that hasn't all ready been done (or tried) that could be done on a PC that would be considered progress. And please, don't point out some $10,000.00 cockpit panel.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
and indeed not in a homebuild cockpit
(just a link: http://www.mikesflightdeck.com/simpit_links.htm&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;In (http://www.mikesflightdeck.com/simpit_links.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In) a perfect world where $ grew on trees we could all have a warehouse full of different cockpits.. One for the 109, 190, P51, B17.. etc. But here in the real world we don't have room let alone the $ for that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
there was and is a chance to fix some bad/'wrong' views and overmodelled struts(bars)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of economics 101 did you skip? The whole semester or just a few weeks of it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
as FW-190 and many more red+blue fighters..some with few problems some with more ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Fw190 is a light refraction issue.. i.e. ANOTHER TOPIC.. But you don't have to model light refraction in real time.. Just draw the art to account for it.. i.e. make the bar thinner at the bottom as it would appear in real life.. But there is a problem.. Oleg did the cockpits and aircraft to such fine precession that if you did do that on the Fw190 you would be staring into the engine housing.. Which means to account for light refraction you would have to deviate from the real world dimensions to FAKE the cockpit a bit.. And had he done that you would have had people beyyyyyaching about that too! Granted not as many.. And I for one would have preferred he did do that! But Oleg is into the details.. and he wanted a cockpit with real world dementions

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
OK: let's wait the first pics or demo of BoB and we will see if the developer/desighners are on a progressive way to PC-desktop systems....by the way : lets wait for the next pics of late types of F4 Corsair in forward + surround views of this combat bird and some of the PF fans will wake up soon...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nah.. I would love to get JUST ONE example from you that you would consider progress that did not require me to go out and buy a $10,000.00 projection screen and or home made cockpit... Once you take the time to try and answer that I think you too will realize that my statement is true.. i.e. "There is only so much you can do on a PC"

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

starfighter1
07-17-2004, 01:12 PM
hi,
some misunderstandings...

1)I'm talking about the height of pilots view and even to gunsight or gyroscope view.
My statement: the virtual view in game is too low at all planes. I call it 'the gnomish FB view'
( don't tell me there was and is no chance or time to change that in the past or maybe in the future)
2)We don't need a totally new or redesign of transparent view...just you have to fix the overmodelled 'thick bars and struts in some planes' (by the way: remember the design by third french design party/ at Me-262 in the gunsight view/..OK but got some problems with the height of camera view system in game engine in gunsight modus.

3)true: there is a main issue of light refraction but that's only one of many view/design problems as I pointed out in the general problem of camera view system and the 'overframed' struts and bars in many planes.

Believe me: the developer knows the problems but has not interest to fix them ...
(some reprogramming in game engine/nowadays to many planes)
...and even not at the background of well selling Addons.

Maybe there is a chance to third party design if the developer would import it ?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey!

ASH at S-MART
07-17-2004, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey! How's it going?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
some misunderstandings...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To be expected

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
1)I'm talking about the height of pilots view and even to gunsight or gyroscope view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
My statement: the virtual view in game is too low at all planes. I call it 'the gnomish FB view'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, ok, which by the way is very VERY different now from your initial statement.. of

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
I'm just waiting for the next bull**** 'wrong' forward and virtual pilots cockpit views (including the gunside/gyroscope design view)and more overmodelled struts in the next update planes in PF.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where you implied the forward view is bull, wrong, etc and where the gunsight was just a subset.. As for your revised statement.. This gnomish view you refer to is the view through the gunsight itself.. that is to say the pilots head is position at GUNSIGHT level. Which is very usefully when looking forward and trying to shoot something. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Now before you say that the pilot didn't keep his head at this level all the time... I would agree! But, what would you prefer? In that the main purpose of a WWII gunfight sim is to put bullets into the enemy.. It would be nice if we had some way to LEAN UP, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT.. but we don't.. Hopefully someday in the future they will add this. But it is too late for IL2 and most likely too late for PF? There has been some talk and art work showing the HIGH IN THE SADDLE view in the F4u.. Which will come in very VERY handy for landings!! But, I *think* all they did there is take the current Shift-F1 FORWARD/BACKWARD lean thing and offset the POV a little higher.. Kind of like the Me262 view where you are no longer looking forward at gunsight level.. Very high in the saddle.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
(don't tell me there was and is no chance or time to change that in the past or maybe in the future)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Too late! I all ready did! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
2)We don't need a totally new or redesign of transparent view...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I beg to differ

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
just you have to fix the overmodelled 'thick bars and struts in some planes' (by the way: remember the design by third french design party/ at Me-262 in the gunsight view/..OK but got some problems with the height of camera view system in game engine in gunsight modus.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Over modelled? I didn't draw them.. but from talking with a few of the art guys here I am under the impression that the thickness is exactly right.. Granted due to the lack of light refraction being modeled that thick blockage at the bottom of the Fw190 looks thicker then in real life.. That is to say if you took the glass OUT OF A Fw190 and looked forward it would look like IL2's Fw190

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
3)true: there is a main issue of light refraction<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I wouldn't call it 'main' in that it does not adversely effect all the aircraft.. It does mess with the Fw190 badly though.. But only at the bottom.. All other thicknesses are pretty much dead on. If you want to talk about a messed up foward view.. That makes the Fw190 view look GOOD! Take a look at the forward view of a razor back P47! Now the LACK OF simulating how the human eyes work makes that bar down the center look solid.. Thus BLOCKING your view right down the center of the gun sight.. Where as in real life you would not even see that bar.. it would appear to be semi-transpart. The lack of simulating light refraction messes up the Fw190 forward view and the lack of simulation human eyes messes up the P47 razor back forward view. A few years back a sim called EAW realised this and they went as far as to REMOVE that bar.. Only because doing semi-trans was too hard.. But they REALISED that in real life that bar would NOT LOOK SOLID.. Thus the justification for removing it!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
but that's only one of many view/design problems as I pointed out in the general problem of camera view system and the 'overframed' struts and bars in many planes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You have not really pointed out anything IMHO.. You have waved the general hand at it and called it bull**** 'wrong, gormish, no-progress.. But you have not really explained exactly what the problem is.. LET ALONE provided a way to fix them. As I pointed out, the thicknesses are not over modeled.. There are that big.. Now if your saying for game play purposes and DUE TO THE LIMITATIONS OF THE PC MONITOR they should be UN-REALISTICLY reduced in size for game play purposes.. Well all I would say is that is one way to do it.. Other sims in the past have done it that way.. But I don't like it.. I prefer the correct scale of things.. If they would just take into account that the human eye would be able to see around them.. And make them semi-trans all would be good and simulate REALITY better.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Believe me: the developer knows the problems but has not interest to fix them ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Belive me: The developers knows about the problems.. but they unlike many here realize there is only so much you can do with a PC monitor

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
(some reprogramming in game engine/nowadays to many planes)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not some reprogramming.. My guess would be A LOT of reprogramming

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
...and even not at the background of well selling Addons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Maybe there is a chance to third party design if the developer would import it ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Import what? Just what is it you are asking for? What is *this* fix you want? Because it sounds like to me your asking for the ability to LEAN.. And if so, I would be all for it!! But, as I pointed out in this thread many MANY times.. I have got the impression from talking to and reading posts by people who actually do the 3D cockpit art that adding the ability to LEAN.. i.e. MOVING THE POV would require a lot more art would to be added.. *IF* that is true, then I *THINK* the best way to make it better is to simulate how the human eyes work and make the cockpit bars semi-transparent.. Same size, Same position, Same color.. Just semi-trans.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

[This message was edited by ASH_SMART on Sat July 17 2004 at 01:05 PM.]

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2004, 03:17 PM
Look, this is all very simple:

Look at this Targetware Zero (http://www.targetware.net) cockpit:

http://www.naysayers.com/Zero_pit.gif

Nice view, huh? The pilot's sitting in his chair instead of hanging his chin on the forward console, making things hard on himself. And even Microsoft and Warbirds managed to arrive at something similar to this, and afford the Zeke the visibility (and also vulnerability) it was famous for.

The question for the dev team is simply: do you have the will to do the 'pit right, or are you just out to screw a plane out of its historical advantages?

Really not rocket science, is it?

Incidentally, the flight model for the Zeros over at Targetware is better, too: it has all its historical advantages and disadvantages against its adversaries.

starfighter1
07-17-2004, 03:55 PM
hi.
indeed good pic ..and some designs are easier than some simers are talking around here...

what's Your statement to this 'ASH_SMART' ?

by the way: same to KI-84 where the forward windscreen bar is 'overframed'(remember some mails to me from well known jap. designers)







<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Look, this is all very simple:

Look at this http://www.targetware.net cockpit:

http://www.naysayers.com/Zero_pit.gif

Nice view, huh? The pilot's sitting in his chair instead of hanging his chin on the forward console, making things hard on himself. And even Microsoft and Warbirds managed to arrive at something similar to this, and afford the Zeke the visibility (and also vulnerability) it was famous for.

The question for the dev team is simply: do you have the will to do the 'pit right, or are you just out to screw a plane out of its historical advantages?

Really not rocket science, is it?

Incidentally, the flight model for the Zeros over at Targetware is better, too: it has all its historical advantages and disadvantages against its adversaries.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASH at S-MART
07-17-2004, 08:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Look, this is all very simple:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One would think so.. but you and yours seem to keep missing the point.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Nice view, huh?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Seen better seen worse..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The pilot's sitting in his chair instead of hanging his chin on the forward console, making things hard on himself. And even Microsoft and Warbirds managed to arrive at something similar to this, and afford the Zeke the visibility (and also vulnerability) it was famous for.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not sure what your point is.. In that I personally think the ZERO in IL2 had great visibilty.. Espically to the rear.. The only QUESTION here is who is more on the mark with regards to bar thicknesses.. My guess would be Il2. Which means these are dumbed down cokpits where they draw the cockpit bars thinner as to take into acount the FACT that in real life the human eyes would make them pratically invisable (ie semi-trans).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The question for the dev team is simply: do you have the will to do the 'pit right, or are you just out to screw a plane out of its historical advantages?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You say that as if you have some sort of proff that the cockpit in IL2's zero is wrong.. Or are you just saying you wish IL2 would not be such a prefectionst and dumb down the cockpits and make the bars thinner?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Really not rocket science, is it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>For some it seems to be.. Some folks here dont even understand how the human eye works even though they experance it in everyday life

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Incidentally, the flight model for the Zeros over at Targetware is better, too: it has all its historical advantages and disadvantages against its adversaries.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Easy to say.. Hard to prove.. In short, you have presented NOTHING that would indicate otherwise. Everyone knows your bias for Targetware.. But I didnt realise until this thread that you also consider microsofts simulatros to be "beter". Which I thinks says enough! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The only question left is.. Why are you here? If you like Targetware and Microsoft better.. Why are you hanging out in a fourm of a sim you dislike? Troll Jollys?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-17-2004, 08:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi.
indeed good pic ..and some designs are easier than some simers are talking around here...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. some sims in the past and currently diviate away from drawing the cockpit true to scale.. Mostly because it takes a big effort and that most people would never notice.. which seems to be the case in that Targerware pic of the Zero..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
what's Your statement to this 'ASH_SMART' ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It hasnt change.. and my question still stands.. What is it you think is broke.. And what do you propose to fix it? Any noob can to tear down a sim and point out where it does not match reality.. DUH! But to come up with ways to improve on it.. Now that is not so hard.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
by the way: same to KI-84 where the forward windscreen bar is 'overframed'(remember some mails to me from well known jap. designers)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>By the way, you have yet to answer the questions posed to you.. And just stating it is overframed is in no way any proof. That is to say you have not presented anything here to prove otherwise

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2004, 08:35 PM
If they deviate is to create the proper effect: that's what simulation is. Sometimes you have to have a bit of a kludge to get the right effect.

Seems that with thinner canopy struts, the binocular vision problem goes away. (And anyway, you haven't yet answered the charge of the guy who posted scale Zero canopy pictures that show how overly thickened the Il-2 Zero struts are). I ask you, what's the better simulation? I'd say Targetware is in this regard. This view is more of what you would PERCEIVE the view to be in combat; and that's the point isn't it? Zero pilots didn't fixate on the struts, but rather what was past them. Once again, advantage: TW.

(By the way I said *even* MS did a better job on the Zero canopy; I did NOT come out and say it was a better sim than IL-2; I'm not that stupid.)

The blind fanboisim in this community is rabid. You bring something up, they say, "where's yer proof?" You show the proof and there's a new excuse waiting to take its place. By the way, let's level your own logic at you, fanboiSMART: where's *your* proof that the Zero struts ARE that thick?? As I noted above, a guy posted some real Zero pictures that seem to suggest they weren't. We keep ignoring that and hoping it'll go away, don't we?

And the most damning indictment of all is the fact that the FMs keep changing. If they're always right, be sure, according to the fanboi mantra, exactly which version of a FM that's been changed 3 times IS right? They can't all be. And that proves our point. It's *often* not right.

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Sun July 18 2004 at 08:59 AM.]

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Sun July 18 2004 at 09:01 AM.]

ASH at S-MART
07-17-2004, 09:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
If they deviate is to create the proper effect: that's what simulation is. Sometimes you have to have a bit of a kludge to get the right effect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I totally agree! It is done all the time and in every aspect of the sim.. I just wanted to be CRYSTAL CLEAR that Il2 was NOT WRONG in drawing the cockpits TRUE TO SCALE!! Just a choice really that some agree with and some dont.. But most DONT AGREE with it just because they really dont know how to draw it to scale.. then package it like they are doing you a favor by doing so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Seems that with thinner canopy struts, the binocular vision problem goes away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. that is ONE WAY of doing it.. Many sims in the past addressed the binocular vision by simply dumging down the cokpit bar thicknesses.. But I personally dont like that method becasue it does away with the advantage and disadvatage some aircraft had.. Like the 109 and it's poor visabilty.. By dumbing down the cokpit bars it gives it as good of a veiw as any other aircraft.. And to me that is bad.. But if they did the semi-transparent method.. It would maintain the advantages and disavantages and true to life scale of the cockpits

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
(And anyway, you haven't yet answered the charge of the guy who posted scale Zero canopy pictures that show how overly thickened the Il-2 Zero struts are).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Because I try not to comment on things that I dont have and explanation for or proof of.. unlike you and yours.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I ask you, what's the better simulation? I'd say Targetware is in this regard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is personal really.. You would have to define BETTER and in trying to do so you would realise it too is personal. I personally like true to life scale cockpits.. But without semi-transparent cockpit bars it hinders us greatly.. And with regards to visuals we are allready greatly hindered by the FOV and size of the PC monitor.. So I would not mind if they SCALED them down if they could not find a way to incorperate the ability to LEAN or semi-transparet cockpit bars.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
(By the way I said *even* MS did a better job on the Zero canopy; I did NOT come out and say it was a better sim than IL-2; I'm not that stupid.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! I noticed you didnt try to defend your bias towards Targerware though! GOTCHA! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The blind fanboisim in this community is rabid. You bring something up, they say, "where's yer proof?" You show the proof and there's a new excuse waiting to take its place.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
By the way, let's level your own logic at you, fanboiSMART: where's *your* proof that the Zero struts ARE that thick. As I noted above, a guy posted some real Zero pictures that seem to suggest they weren't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Note that I never claimed to have any proof.. I simply pointed out that no one else has either

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And the most damning indictment of all is the fact that the FMs keep changing. If they're always right, be sure, according to the fanboi mantra, exactly which version of a FM that's been changed 3 times IS right? They can't all be. And that proves our point. It's *often* not right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Boy.. guys like you.. Dang if you do and Dang if you dont.. Just no way to please everyone all the time.. That is for sure.. Say stgler.. What color is the sky on your planet where the humans never make a mistake and then have to make a change? Sounds wonderfull!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

[This message was edited by ASH_SMART on Sat July 17 2004 at 08:35 PM.]

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2004, 09:45 PM
The way to defend my bias towards Targetware is simply to compare same planes that the sims have in common. I can state with confidence that their Zero is better, and their P-40 is better, and also that their maps are better.

It's only pure opinion that their mission-based setup is better. People have to judge that for themselves.

As for producing no data, still you dodge the post that pretty categorically shows a real zero without plywood 4 x 8 panels lining the canopy glass. No answer to that, huh? Just another blathering assertion that nobody ever complains and shows data.

Also, even if that zero pit is "true to scale" which I doubt, you must have at least the sneaking suspicion that the game view and head position are well too far forward. I notice the Targetware pit looks about right as far as that is concerned.

====================
As far as my living in a perfect world, I wish. Even in Targetware, we beta members have much the same kind of debates there as here: otto too strong (or too weak), .50 cals not effective or too effective, even flaming arguments about the agility of Beaufighters. But, the spirit of the debate there is refreshingly different: nobody has any ego at at stake or any ulterior motives: if it's wrong, and shown to be wrong it gets fixed; period. There's no digging in of heels about cartoonish muzzle flashes, no refusal to fix canopies like the FW190 in here, no convenient excuses about what parts of the sim just "can't be changed".

LEXX_Luthor
07-17-2004, 10:03 PM
Japanese pilots hated Zero canopy because of the large multiple bars. FB got the Zero canopy spot on correct.

The TargetWare Zero canopy is clean and "lean" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and is popular with its simmers and "easy" to use.
Its a total Fake, but is highly reccommended for those desiring "ease of use" in a flight sim.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2004, 10:39 PM
*Snicker* You've obviously never flown a Zero there and compared to the one in here.

Where did you read that Japanese pilots hated the Zero's canopy? I remember reading that pilots weaned on the A5M Claude originally hated the Zero because it wasn't as maneuverable as the little fixed-undercarriage plane they'd used in China, but when they got it into combat against the west, they soon changed their tune.

I can imagine also that after flying an open pit Claude, the Zero would naturally feel a little claustrophobic. Just like a VVS pilot going from an I-16 to a Yak, or a LaGG or a MiG. Same thing. Have to get used to technological progress.

Let's see: here's what Saburo Sakai had to say about his first impressions of a Zero.

From the book "Samurai!" by Sadai, Caidin & Saito
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At Kaohsiung I was in for a tremendous surprise. On the airfield I saw strange new fighter planes, as different from the familiar Type 96 Claudes as night from day. These were the new Mitsubishi Zero fighters, sleek and modern. The Zero excited me as nothing else had ever done before. even on the ground it had the cleanest lines I'd ever seen in an airplane. We now had enclosed cockpits, a more powerful engine and retractable landing gear. {My note: wow, sounds like he just hates those canopy bars, eh?}

Instead of only two light machine guns, we were armed with two machine guns and two heavy 20mm cannon as well.The Zero had nearly twice the speed and range as the Claude, and was a dream to fly.The Zero was the most sensitive plane I'd ever flown, and even the slightest fingertip pressure brought instant response. We could hardly wait to meet enemy planes in this remarkable new aircraft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Sun July 18 2004 at 08:51 AM.]

crazyivan1970
07-17-2004, 10:44 PM
Stigler you keep promoting that game i`ll lock this thread because of you. Just FYI it`s against the rules.

BTW that zero pit looks like **** http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

One more thing, zoom out in AEP Zero pit and you`ll get a nice view, don`t put your forehead up on gunsight http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, 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.

starfighter1
07-18-2004, 01:25 AM
hi,
at ASH_SMART

in few words(can't repeat all that of last 2 years discussion):
1) I'm talking about the height of pilots eye view in real and in virtual camera view and this is too low in the game engine designed camera view system since IL-2 up to FB/ACE
(let me say: in most of the planes nearly up to 30 degree more down/as many experts and pics showed in the past in this forum before ' ASH_SMART registrated in this forum at Febr 15 2004)(just try the search function of this forum )

2)'overframed' bars and struts is another point.
Please remember the long threat in the past when O.M. pointed out 'his view and uggly pic' of a Ta-152/FW-190 cockpit forward view to explain his point of view in this case.

Old stories ASH_SMART ...thousand times disprooved by real pics that O.M. and his designers did mistakes in the past.
(but never fixed them ...)

Everyone who had the chance to sat in well restored warbirds (me too)knows that the O.M-team is wrong in this case ...even in height of pilots eyes view and some overframed/overmodelled bars and struts.

Please notice: a blueprint design is one thing .. a correct height of pilots view (including his seat) another point.
re to many infos here a website of more information by Peter van Wyk de Vries:
( and there are tons of information by jap. designers and museums of correct Cockpit design in the web... I guess it's helpfull to inform in another threat)
http://www.triplane.net/








[QUOTE]Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi.

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2004, 09:50 AM
Ivan:

1) It should be cricket to trot out another sim or another sim's screenshot for *comparison*'s sake. I didn't just go off on a TW rant for the heck of it. You have to admit, that "other" Zero pit offers a better, and more representative view of the Zero's visibility (e.g., better SIMULATION. Keep that in mind when making your decisions, and I'll try and tone down on the "sales pitches", deal?

2) Looking forward to what AEP does to correct all the FB Zero mistakes and deficiencies. For now, all they're showing us is folding wings, which is nothing but eye candy that has almost ZERO affect on flying and fighting in the game. This, I think, is par for the course: smoke and mirrors and detail where it's not really needed, mistakes and outright b*** in things that DO matter. We all know there are scads of examples of this throughout the history of this title.

I'd rather have the planes and weapons, ALL of them, for EVERY air force, operating to spec than see folding wings on CV decks, y'know???

crazyivan1970
07-18-2004, 09:54 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, 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.

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The way to defend my bias towards Targetware<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Chah! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
is simply to compare same planes that the sims have in common.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree.. you have to compare them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I can state with confidence that their Zero is better, and their P-40 is better, and also that their maps are better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. that is not a comparison.. That is just a statement with nothing to back it up.. When you said compare I thought you meant you had some sort of flight data... say roll rate at such and such alt.. Then did a test in both sims and found one to hit the numbers better than the other.. In short I can state with cofidence that you have not presented anything that I would consider to be a comparison.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
It's only pure opinion that their mission-based setup is better. People have to judge that for themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmm I guess so.. in that would be based on peoples personl intepetations of the storys they read about the day to day lifes of the pilots and thier mission... But that is not the way to compare the aircraft! You personaly interptation of what someone worte when they said "Rolls Better" is not the way to compare.. As I have to assume you did in that you presented nothing to prove otherwise.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
As for producing no data, still you dodge the post that pretty categorically shows a real zero without plywood 4 x 8 panels lining the canopy glass. No answer to that, huh? Just another blathering assertion that nobody ever complains and shows data.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The big difference here is I am not IMPLYING that either sim is wrong or correct... Thus the burden is not on me.. The burden is on the people making statements like "I can state with confidence that their Zero is better, and their P-40 is better" It is easy to find something in a simulation that does not match the real world.. Any NOOB can do it.. A sim was,is, and allways will be NOT REAL! But to provide the DATA and scientific method so others can reproduce the test to compare.. Now that is something.. But you just stating it is better means nothing to me.. Espically in light of your ovious biases.. Anything you say with regards to Targertware is suspect.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Also, even if that zero pit is "true to scale" which I doubt, you must have at least the sneaking suspicion that the game view and head position are well too far forward.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is why IL2 provides the Shift-F1 keys.. So you can lean FORWARD and BACKWARDS. Had they place it farther back there would be people here complaining it is too far back and the gun sight seems too small.. Back to that FACT taht you can not please everyone all the time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I notice the Targetware pit looks about right as far as that is concerned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh! Im glad that you are PERSONALLY happy with it.. But that does not mean it is more accurate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
As far as my living in a perfect world, I wish. Even in Targetware, we beta members have much the same kind of debates there as here: otto too strong (or too weak), .50 cals not effective or too effective, even flaming arguments about the agility of Beaufighters. But, the spirit of the debate there is refreshingly different: nobody has any ego at at stake or any ulterior motives: if it's wrong, and shown to be wrong it gets fixed; period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Give me an example of how something was SHOWN TO BE WRONG.. Because you have yet to SHOW anything here.. how do they do it there?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
There's no digging in of heels about cartoonish muzzle flashes, no refusal to fix canopies like the FW190 in here, no convenient excuses about what parts of the sim just "can't be changed".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again.. my question was NOT how they do it overthere.. My question was "why are you here?" if you LOVE that sim so much.. And you think it is so much better.. Why dont you just go there? What did you buy some stock in the company and trying to get people from here to go over there?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2004, 10:08 AM
ASH_Smart's weasel explanation about the Zero pictures *showing* the pit braces were not as thick as portrayed by the FB pit:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Because I try not to comment on things that I dont have and explanation for or proof of.. unlike you and yours.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you HAVE them; all of us can go back a few pages and see those pictures. Including the ones that show pretty much how overthickened they are. Go back and see: now what do you have to say?

What's the next excuse: "Prove that that's really a Zero??" Or, "show me the calipers!!" You're really reaching, guy....

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
at ASH_SMART<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey starfighter1! How's it going?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
in few words(can't repeat all that of last 2 years discussion):<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, but I would think that after two years you would have come up with a better summary? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
1) I'm talking about the height of pilots eye view in real and in virtual camera view and this is too low in the game engine designed camera view system since IL-2 up to FB/ACE<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, ok, AGAIN which is very VERY different now from your initial statement.. of

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
I'm just waiting for the next bull**** 'wrong' forward and virtual pilots cockpit views (including the gunside/gyroscope design view)and more overmodelled struts in the next update planes in PF.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where you implied the forward view is bull, wrong, etc and where the gunsight was just a subset.. As for your revised statement.. This gnomish view you refer to is the view through the gunsight itself.. that is to say the pilots head is position at GUNSIGHT level. Which is very usefully when looking forward and trying to shoot something. Now before you say that the pilot didn't keep his head at this level all the time... I would agree! But, what would you prefer? In that the main purpose of a WWII gunfight sim is to put bullets into the enemy.. It would be nice if we had some way to LEAN UP, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT.. but we don't.. Hopefully someday in the future they will add this. But it is too late for IL2 and most likely too late for PF? There has been some talk and art work showing the HIGH IN THE SADDLE view in the F4u.. Which will come in very VERY handy for landings!! But, I *think* all they did there is take the current Shift-F1 FORWARD/BACKWARD lean thing and offset the POV a little higher.. Kind of like the Me262 view where you are no longer looking forward at gunsight level.. Very high in the saddle.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
(let me say: in most of the planes nearly up to 30 degree more down/as many experts and pics showed in the past in this forum before<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just because other sims choose to draw the cockpits to less than blue print specs does not mean IL2 head position is in error.. Most sims didn't draw 3D art cockpits that had to fit into the 3D aircraft model.. By fit I mean had to be the right size and shape otherwise there would be problems.. Take the initial release of the P38 for example.. They positioned the 3D cockpit art too far forward relative to the 3D aircraft art and you could see the 3D aircraft are mirror in the 3D cockpit art's mirror

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
' ASH_SMART registrated in this forum at Febr 15 2004)(just try the search function of this forum )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! And that means... what? My XXX is bigger than your XXX? Please! if your trying to imply that I am in error with my statements and you have been here longer and are previe to some info that I am not.. Then you should be able to tear a new one in my statements with your 2 year advantage.. But you have yet to do so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
2)'overframed' bars and struts is another point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No actually it is part of my same point.. The 3D cockpit art of IL2 has to be more to blue print specs to mesh with the 3D aircraft art because they combined the two.. Where as other sims in the past just had 2D art that had nothing to do with the 3D aircraft art.. In short, when you looked at the wings from the outside (3D aircraft art) they were not the same wing art that you saw from inside the cockpit.. They drew separate wing art that was part of the cockpit art.. In IL2 and other modern sims the wings you see from the 3D cockpit art are the wings of the 3D aircraft art.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Please remember the long threat in the past when O.M. pointed out 'his view and uggly pic' of a Ta-152/FW-190 cockpit forward view to explain his point of view in this case.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes I remember the Fw190 cockpit art discussions.. All 100,000,000.00 of them! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Old stories ASH_SMART ...thousand times disprooved by real pics that O.M. and his designers did mistakes in the past.
(but never fixed them ...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Thousands of times disproved! LOL! No.. Actually thousands of times that the people didn't understand what OM said or didn't accept what he said.. OM is well aware of Economics 101 and the LIMITATIONS OF THE PC! Something many here who live in a world where money grows on trees don't seem to understand.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Everyone who had the chance to sat in well restored warbirds (me too)knows that the O.M-team is wrong in this case ...even in height of pilots eyes view and some overframed/overmodelled bars and struts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As one who has had the pleasure of sitting in a real WWII warbird I would have to disagree with you.. What you don't seem to understand is the sim is drawn in the fighting position.. not the scanning the sky position.. The fighting position is where the pilot has positioned his head (lean forward and down a bit) to see THROUGH THE GUN SIGHT!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Please notice: a blueprint design is one thing ..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>YES! A VERY BIG ONE THING! And not a wrong thing at all!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
a correct height of pilots view (including his seat) another point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which nothing has been presented here that would lead me to belive it is in error.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
re to many infos here a website of more information by Peter van Wyk de Vries:
( and there are tons of information by jap. designers and museums of correct Cockpit design in the web... I guess it's helpfull to inform in another threat)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh! A lot of stuff left open to interpetation.. But no real proof IMHO!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
ASH_Smart's weasel explanation about the Zero pictures *showing* the pit braces were not as thick as portrayed by the FB pit:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Because I try not to comment on things that I dont have and explanation for or proof of.. unlike you and yours.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you HAVE them; all of us can go back a few pages and see those pictures. Including the ones that show pretty much how overthickened they are. Go back and see: now what do you have to say?

What's the next excuse: "Prove that that's _really_ a Zero??" Or, "show me the calipers!!" You're really _reaching_, guy....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW! I must have struck a neve when I pointed out you have presented nothing that would prove the zero or p40 in targetware is beter.. Sorry if I hurt your *feelings* you know the thing you base you statments on!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

MetalG.
07-18-2004, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Japanese pilots hated Zero canopy because of the large multiple bars. FB got the Zero canopy spot on correct.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I know the Japanese pilots did not hate the Zero's cockpit.
From what I can tell by reading Sakai's book, Samurai, they didn't complain about the cockpit. Ofcourse this is no definitive proof that they liked the cockpit, but I'm pretty sure they didn't hate it. Also nowhere in that book does Sakai mention any complaint about the cockpit or lack of visibility from it. Again this is ofcourse no definitive proof but I do think it can be seen as an indication that you are incorrect.
However, I would like to see any links or maybe documents etc. which state otherwise if you can post them here.

Also, if the canopy is indeed spot on correct, can you please post some sources on this as well? I'm not saying the canopy is correct or not correct, just trying to figure out if these canopy bars were indeed as thick as they are now in FB.

starfighter1
07-18-2004, 10:55 AM
hi,
ASH_SMART You are gambling and changing with words including the issue in some points.

If You know all the old discussion You should agree to the main point: the developer did'nt design the camera view system compare to real pilots height of view. That's fact ! basta !
Many real pics + videos of the past show this and every expert of restored warbirs know this.

Next: the 'overframed' design of Cockpit struts and some 'bars' are also facts !

And of course if You have another view of this please show us the 'blueprints' and sizes etc. compare to the design in real and in the game's design.

Agamemnon22
07-18-2004, 11:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
the developer did'nt design the camera view system compare to real pilots height of view. That's fact ! basta !
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just so you know, noone DESIGNED the camera view system to be biased up, down, left or right or anything. The camera system simply IS, its a piece of code that describes how things are rendered on your screen. The controversy comes from where the cockpit modeller puts the pilot's POV.

Let me tell you something, you look at these pits in passing and say 'oh well that's obviously wrong' (btw to the original poster: there is no sense comparing the external model to the internal, they're 2 separate things, with the external having far less precision). Meanwhile, I can guarantee you that the guy who sat down for a few MONTHs and made the cockpit knows the thing inside and out. After staring at pictures and blueprints for a such a long time, you really get to know your subject, believe me.

If you want to prove something is wrong, you damn well better have some serious evidence. You're accusing MG or a particular modeller of being wrong, the burden of proof is with you. You speak of facts, but I see none here.

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MetalG.:
From what I can tell by reading Sakai's book, Samurai, they didn't complain about the cockpit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. I guess that could be proof that the guys flying this sim and complaning about the cockpit are no Samurai! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey startfighter1!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
ASH_SMART You are gambling and changing with words including the issue in some points.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually I think all my statments have been pretty consistant.. Where as yours have gone from bull*** and wrong and no progress to head height is wrong

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
If You know all the old discussion You should agree to the main point: the developer did'nt design the camera view system compare to real pilots height of view. That's fact ! basta !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well in light of you not stateing exactally what you consder the head height to be I can only assume what your saying.. I on the other hand went as far as to point out (define) the height of the head.. ie the POV of the pilot is THROUGH THE GUNSIGHT! Thus a little lower then one would have when just looking around.. If they didnt do that you would not be able to aim very well.. That copuled with the 3D artwork may make it seem LOWER relitive to other sims.. But does NOT mean it is in error.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Many real pics + videos of the past show this and every expert of restored warbirs know this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope.. I dont agree at all! Because I have as yet to see one video of a restored war bird that places the camera into the fireing position.. i.e. IN LINE WITH THE GUN SIGHT SO ONE CAN AIM HIS GUNS!! Heck most restored WWII aircraft DONT EVEN HAVE A GUN SIGHT IN THEM! But that trend is changing.. Alot of the ones restored in the past 10 years are going for that orginal WWII config look

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Next: the 'overframed' design of Cockpit struts and some 'bars' are also facts !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. *IF* they are *FACTS* you have not presented ANYTHING that would prove it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
And of course if You have another view of this please show us the 'blueprints' and sizes etc. compare to the design in real and in the game's design.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Note, Im not saying they are wrong or right.. You guys are the ones that are saying it is wrong.. Im simply pointing out that you have not provided anythnig to prove it.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Agamemnon22:
Just so you know, noone DESIGNED the camera view system to be biased up, down, left or right or anything. The camera system simply IS, its a piece of code that describes how things are rendered on your screen. The controversy comes from where the cockpit modeller puts the pilot's POV.

Let me tell you something, you look at these pits in passing and say 'oh well that's obviously wrong' (btw to the original poster: there is no sense comparing the external model to the internal, they're 2 separate things, with the external having far less precision). Meanwhile, I can guarantee you that the guy who sat down for a few MONTHs and made the cockpit knows the thing inside and out. After staring at pictures and blueprints for a such a long time, you really get to know your subject, believe me.

If you want to prove something is wrong, you damn well better have some serious evidence. You're accusing MG or a particular modeller of being wrong, the burden of proof is with you. You speak of facts, but I see none here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally!!!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

starfighter1
07-18-2004, 12:04 PM
hi,
come on please mix it up ..please ..
we are talking about inside virtual pilots view, design/camera view system parallel designed to gunsight view/combat view ( by use shift+F1) and normal view forward and surround.

I and other users posted many real pics of /and FW-190..P-51,Spitfire in the past..in this forum and others like simhq/netwings.org forum...
have a look here again:
http://www.triplane.net/fin/190/190pit.htm

and this comments:
http://www.triplane.net/sim/simulations.htm

I'm looking forward to a well future design at BoB and a chance to redesign some planes/cockpits by third party at FB/ACE ..
Anyway: the developer will not change it now ..same to that 'uggly holywood flashes' that takes to much work at the moment...or maybe the designer love at it is ...
sometime there is a lot of strange individuel arts in games even in this running one..

[/QUOTE]

Just so you know, noone DESIGNED the camera view system to be biased up, down, left or right or anything. The camera system simply IS, its a piece of code that describes how things are rendered on your screen. The controversy comes from where the cockpit modeller puts the pilot's POV.

Let me tell you something, you look at these pits in passing and say 'oh well that's obviously wrong' (btw to the original poster: there is no sense comparing the external model to the internal, they're 2 separate things, with the external having far less precision). Meanwhile, I can guarantee you that the guy who sat down for a few MONTHs and made the cockpit knows the thing inside and out. After staring at pictures and blueprints for a such a long time, you really get to know your subject, believe me.

If you want to prove something is wrong, you damn well better have some serious evidence. You're accusing MG or a particular modeller of being wrong, the burden of proof is with you. You speak of facts, but I see none here.[/QUOTE]

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
come on please mix it up ..please ..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well at least you are not calling them bull****, wrong, and or no progress.. So I guess something good has come from this.. In that now your only real complaint is that the hight of the simulated head is too low.. Which I disagree with.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
we are talking about inside virtual pilots view, design/camera view system parallel designed to gunsight view/combat view ( by use shift+F1) and normal view forward and surround.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We are now that I narrowed down you definition.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
I and other users posted many real pics of /and FW-190..P-51,Spitfire in the past..in this forum and others like simhq/netwings.org forum...
have a look here again:
http://www.triplane.net/fin/190/190pit.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Those pictures dont really prove much.. Except that you can take a picture from any height.. To prove or disprove anything you would have to know the elevation of the camears POV relitive too something.. Putting a ruler in front of the camera is a start.. But not know where the camera orgin is relitive to something makes it pretty much worthless.. Take this Fw190 pic for example from your link

http://www.triplane.net/fin/190/190mages/MyView.jpg

NOTE first thing.. there is NO GUNSIGHT! second you can see the top of the nose and top of the interior plate where the gunsight would sit.. Had there been one.. Both of which indicate the cameara higher than the INLINE GUNSIGHT view.

Now this one..

http://www.triplane.net/fin/190/190mages/Fw%20190%20148.jpg

This one appears to be more like the view within IL-2.. Low as if the pilot is putting his head down a bit to LOOK THROUGH THE GUNSIGHT.. But sense there is no gunsight it is hard to tell.. Not here you can see the effect light refraction has on the bottom bar.. which if you will recall is 90% of what all those Fw190 view therds were about.. Not that the pilots head is too low or high.. But due to the lack of light refraction being simulated the botom bar seems thicker... ie higher which is why is shows up a bit in the gunsight of the sim and wouldnt in real life.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
and this comments:
http://www.triplane.net/sim/simulations.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just which one of those comments do you consder to be proof? Because as in here I see none!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
I'm looking forward to a well future design at BoB and a chance to redesign some planes/cockpits by third party at FB/ACE .. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As we all are.. love 3rd paty works! Makes all our lifes better.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Anyway: the developer will not change it now..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If it aint broke dont fixe it! Or are you asking for a change in the engine? Which OM stated years ago would not happen?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
same to that 'uggly holywood flashes' that takes to much work at the moment...or maybe the designer love at it is ... sometime there is a lot of strange individuel arts in games even in this running one.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Easy to say.. Not so easy to prove.. As you have shown here.. Because you have yet to provide anything that would be consider proof.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

starfighter1
07-18-2004, 12:23 PM
hi,
ASH_SMART
remember this part O.M. was asked to this and he told something about licence and closed docs ..

OK: soon some restored warbirds in air or well finished like this FW-190/Dora 13 and new pics and videos are in the pipeline.
Blueprints are available and many third party designers would agree to change this if the forcast/gamecode of the modelling would change.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
And of course if You have another view of this please show us the 'blueprints' and sizes etc. compare to the design in real and in the game's design.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Note, Im not saying they are wrong or right.. You guys are the ones that are saying it is wrong.. Im simply pointing out that you have not provided anythnig to prove it.

_ASH HOUSEWARES_ http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav__
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg [/QUOTE]

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
ASH_SMART
remember this part O.M. was asked to this and he told something about licence and closed docs ..

OK: soon some restored warbirds in air or well finished like this FW-190/Dora 13 and new pics and videos are in the pipeline.
Blueprints are available and many third party designers would agree to change this if the forcast/gamecode of the modelling would change.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which only shows that OM is a reasonble man.. When and if someone presents data that shows him in error he will make the change.. But within the limits of the current game engine.. You and yours tend to imply that OM is not reasonable.. Why? Becuse he will not make a new game engine to address something that has not even been proved to be wrong.. That is to say you and yours have not presented anything that would sugest that the head height is wrong.. or that the canopy bars of the zero are wrong.. In light of that FACT you are now scrambling to find something to be right about.. Thus your re-direct back to the Fw190 light refraction thing.. Which everyone agrees is wrong.. but only because light refractiion is not modled. So I agree that the Fw190 view is wrong for said reason.. But I have yet to agree with your orginal statments (ie bull****, wrong, no progress) let alone anything leading up to your now current re-direct statment that the Fw190 lower bar is too thick.. We all agreed on that years ago

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

starfighter1
07-18-2004, 01:03 PM
hi,
ASH_SMART

soon some new pics/videos bei stereoscope camera view at pilots height of view will show You the truth in different warbirds.
There is a new project of documentation together with experts of restoring warbirds and some museums. If possible also in flight.

But if You are interest YOU have a chance to look arround at some factories and museums in this field and ask for a inside view.

anyway: the way to better design takes time as You remember first pc-combatsims years ago...and even if a rhetoric discussion is much more worth to some users than the real truth.

O.M. got 'tons' of new informations and he knows that a lot should be change...but I guess sometimes he can't except that he and his team made some mistakes...oh.. sorry of course ..the size of the revi he imformed about the Ta-152 in the past...

OK: let's talk about next time more I'm in a hurry and have no chance to repeat soon
thx

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2004, 01:14 PM
ASH Smart wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Low as if the pilot is putting his head down a bit to LOOK THROUGH THE GUNSIGHT..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More smoke and mirrors bullsh** from the master dodger.

I happened to have asked a REAL, LIVE Luftwaffe pilot who scored 28 REAL kills during the war(whose name I happen to have borrowed for online flying http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) and he told me in no uncertain terms that the pilots did not have to hunch down to use the gunsight, unless they were pulling a lot of Gs which were otherwise pulling their heads out of position.

Funny how engineers are: they designed the damned planes so that the pilot could naturally look through the gunsight in a normal seated flying position.... even the "right eye dominant" 109 Revi.

So, not only does that blow out of the water your wishy-washy dismissal of photo evidence (I'll not say proof, but evidence) that the FW190 didn't have such an obstructed view as Oleg would like it to have... it also points out the fallacy of the Shift+F1 bullsh** AND the way IL-2 portrays (or fails to portray) human binocular vision.

A pilot will almost ALWAYS be able to use his gunsight, the exceptions being early Japanese fighters with tubular telescopic sights; now there you WOULD have to align your head just so to look through the sight; that would be worthy of having to use a keypress or some kind of view to simulate the added and unnatural effort. Binocular vision keeps the reflector gunsight glass reading true until you introduce a bit of G (this the sim does fairly well).

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
ASH_SMART

soon some new pics/videos bei stereoscope camera view at pilots height of view will show You the truth in different warbirds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Great! So all your proof is based on things in the future?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
There is a new project of documentation together with experts of restoring warbirds and some museums. If possible also in flight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There is also a guy who stands on the corner in downtown L.A. with a sign that says "REPENT SINNERS THE END IS NEAR" but I dont see any proof of that either! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
But if You are interest YOU have a chance to look arround at some factories and museums in this field and ask for a inside view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You say that as if I have not.. I have had the pleasure of sitting in a F4F a P47 and a P51.. And at that very same place is the worlds only zero that still has the orginal power plant and is flyable.. Maybe one day Ill sit in it.. But might take some bribin! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
anyway: the way to better design takes time as You remember first pc-combatsims years ago...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes I can remember way back in 1988 when guys we calling the cockpits bull***, wrong and no progres

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
and even if a rhetoric discussion is much more worth to some users than the real truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And some can not come to grips with the truth about economics and the limitations of the PC to reprsent a 120 FOV 3D world.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
O.M. got 'tons' of new informations and he knows that a lot should be change...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But unlike the people posting said information OM understands the economics of it all and the limitations of the current crop of PCs

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
but I guess sometimes he can't except that he and his team made some mistakes...oh.. sorry of course ..the size of the revi he imformed about the Ta-152 in the past...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Thanks.. you just proved how wrong your statement is!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
OK: let's talk about next time more I'm in a hurry and have no chance to repeat soon
thx<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why is eveyone in such a hurry when they are pressed to prove thier acusations?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
More smoke and mirrors bullsh** from the master dodger.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Feel free to ignor my *take* on it.. I was simply providing a example that would complety explain the situation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I happened to have asked a REAL, LIVE Luftwaffe pilot who scored 28 REAL kills during the war(whose name I happen to have borrowed for online flying http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) and he told me in no uncertain terms that the pilots did not have to hunch down to use the gunsight,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh.. dang Im sorry, I didnt realise that all the pilots in the Lw were the same height! Or that they could not adj the height of thier seats to thier liking.. Two things that would simply explain why in no uncertain terms that may be true for some pilots an not others.. Nice try though! Got anymore?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
unless they were pulling a lot of Gs which were otherwise pulling their heads out of position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unless.. like in dogfights. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Funny how engineers are: they designed the damned planes so that the pilot could naturally look through the gunsight in a normal seated flying position.... even the "right eye dominant" 109 Revi.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. funny how engineers deal with the RULE and not the EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE like you do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
So, not only does that blow out of the water your wishy-washy dismissal of photo evidence<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry, but the fact that not all Lw pilots were the same height actully blows your attempt to blow it out of the water! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
(I'll not say proof, but evidence) that the FW190 _didn't_ have such an obstructed view as Oleg would like it to have... it also points out the fallacy of the Shift+F1 bullsh** AND the way IL-2 portrays (or fails to portray) human binocular vision.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actully your wrong on all counts.. First everyone agrees that the Fw190 forward view is messed up due to the lack of light refraction being modeled.. not bi-nocular vision.. That is why the P47 razor back forward view is messed up.. But what does any of this have to do with the ZERO cockpit bars?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
A pilot will almost ALWAYS be able to use his gunsight, the exceptions being early Japanese fighters with tubular telescopic sights; now there you WOULD have to align your head _just so_ to look through the sight; that would be worthy of having to use a keypress or some kind of view to simulate the added and unnatural effort. Binocular vision keeps the reflector gunsight glass reading true until you introduce a bit of G (this the sim does fairly well).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not allways.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2004, 01:55 PM
I'll go out on a limb here and state that I'm confident the groundscrew for many AFs, including the Luftwaffe "Blackmen" could make small adjustments to seats, and also to gunsight mountings, to compensate for varying pilot heights.

So could the pilots themselves: some short guys were known to bring cushions to stash under their parachute packs to make up for their, uh, shortcomings.

As for the Zero, my Maru Mechanics for all kinds of japanese planes show seats that were height and leg-room adjustable in Army and Navy planes. (Shame they didn't have any damned ARMOR, though, huh?)

So, we're back to before: you can realistically assume being able to sit in a virtual cockpit that is virtually "optimized" for your viewing, flying and fighting comfort without too much of a stretch. Except in extreme cases, they didn't send you up into air combat with disadvantages if they could help it. (Another knock for Oleg's yellow-streaked later model 109 canopies, *cough* http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif ).

As for in combat fighting, we're talking over 4 Gs before your view through the gunsight is compromised. Some of us manage to do quite well fighting without resorting to that kind of stressfull breakturning.

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I'll go out on a limb here and state that I'm confident the groundscrew for many AFs, including the Luftwaffe "Blackmen" could make small adjustments to seats, and also to gunsight mountings, to compensate for varying pilot heights.

So could the pilots themselves: some short guys were known to bring cushions to stash under their parachute packs to make up for their, uh, shortcomings.

As for the Zero, my Maru Mechanics for all kinds of japanese planes show seats that were height and leg-room adjustable in Army and Navy planes. (Shame they didn't have any damned ARMOR, though, huh?)

So, we're back to before: you _can_ realistically assume being able to sit in a virtual cockpit that is virtually "optimized" for your viewing, flying and fighting comfort without too much of a stretch. Except in extreme cases, they didn't send you up into air combat with disadvantages if they could help it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Welcome to my rope-a-dope.. Now you argree with me that the pilots did what they needed to do to optimise the INLINE GUNSIGHT VIEW.. Some.. like the guys you quoted like thier seat adj so they dont have to do a thing to look THROUGH THE GUNSIGHT.. Which by the way is EXCATLLY HOW IL-2 designe the HEAD HEIGHT! You know the thing you and yours were arguing about.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
(Another knock for Oleg's yellow-streaked later model 109 canopies, *cough* http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif ).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No actually just another example of how you allready got what you are arguing for and dont even realise it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
As for in combat fighting, we're talking over 4 Gs before your view through the gunsight is compromised. Some of us manage to do quite well fighting without resorting to that kind of stressfull breakturning.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Send me your address and Ill send you a gold star to stick on your fridge! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2004, 02:32 PM
Somebody get the guys in white coats. This guy is delusional. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You *must* be a lawyer in real life, ASH. I've never seen anybody that didn't have a law degree that was capable of such mealy-mouthed logic, artful invention and plain dodging of relevant information.

starfighter1
07-18-2004, 02:33 PM
hi,
ASH_SMART
I'm talking about new pics because many photos of the past or in books were done by interest of showing the panels and not so much about pilots normal or 'combat view'.
Same to some museums which restored not all in 100% or somme parts are missed...

Question: where are all the pics and facts of Your views sitting in restored warbirds to show us ...
we are all interest to recognise ASH_SMARTYS personal view of world compare to FB design ?

starfighter1
07-18-2004, 02:38 PM
hi,
remember,,
'trim on elevator' long time ago we didn't here from this ...but same sophisic arguments and phrases of logic


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Somebody get the guys in white coats. This guy is delusional. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You *must* be a lawyer in real life, ASH. I've never seen anybody that didn't have a law degree that was capable of such mealy-mouthed logic, artful invention and plain dodging of relevant information.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Somebody get the guys in white coats. This guy is delusional. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You *must* be a lawyer in real life, ASH. I've never seen anybody that didn't have a law degree that was capable of such mealy-mouthed logic, artful invention and plain dodging of relevant information.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Stuck Gold on that one! Let me know when you have somthing to back up your claims of mistakes.. Because in light of your Targetware bias you off the cuff statments are suspect to say the least

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
ASH_SMART
I'm talking about new pics because many photos of the past or in books were done by interest of showing the panels and not so much about pilots normal or 'combat view'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not ture.. there are alot of pics that show the general area.. But as I pointed out without knowing where the orgine of the cameara was you can NOT make the claims of head height errors that your trying to make.. An inch goes along way.. A sim will tend to draw the pilots head height so that it reside on the line of sight of the gun sight.. As Stiglr pointed out with that quote from a real Lw pilot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Same to some museums which restored not all in 100% or somme parts are missed...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. some parts dont even exist anymore but in museums.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Question: where are all the pics and facts of Your views sitting in restored warbirds to show us ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The day I make an a statment claiming them to be in error will be the day I will provide them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
we are all interest to recognise ASH_SMARTYS personal view of world compare to FB design ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My personal view is simple.. I dont know if the cockpits are dead on or totally off.. And get this.. neither do you! You and Stiglr and go on about your *feeling* all day long like some sewing circle full of women.. But it does not make your *feelings* facts!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
remember,,
'trim on elevator' long time ago we didn't here from this ...but same sophisic arguments and phrases of logic <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! You dont even realise that Stiglr does NOT AGREE with you about the head height!! His quote from the Lw pilots indicates it was allready in the combat position! Ready to shoot!

But in light of Stglers bias for Targetware you might want to take that so called quote witha grain of salt.. He probally made it all up!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

starfighter1
07-18-2004, 03:15 PM
hi,
ASH_SMART
that's not the point.
to all my discussion in classic pilots club and to some more experts in restoring(got a look on blueprints plus explaining the facts)
I stay to this: the design of pilots hight of view in general is too low nearly to all planes, some less some more in the running FB-sim.

I'm really interest of Your pics in the future.
By the way:
there was a discussion at LockOn Forum in the past..
as users asked about low pilot sitting of view in some jets.
Answer of developers(faithful): ...we did that for more comfortable viewing in game playing,wathing the instruments....and of course in real the pilot is sitting higher.
I guess, this developer is serious talking the truth.
next steps in advanced view programming are in the pipeline..


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
remember,,
'trim on elevator' long time ago we didn't here from this ...but same sophisic arguments and phrases of logic <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! You dont even realise that Stiglr does NOT AGREE with you about the head height!! His quote from the Lw pilots indicates it was allready in the combat position! Ready to shoot!

But in light of Stglers bias for Targetware you might want to take that so called quote witha grain of salt.. He probally made it all up!

_ASH HOUSEWARES_ http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav__
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 04:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
ASH_SMART
that's not the point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just what is it now? It was bull****, then wrong, then no progress, then zero cockpit bars thicknesses, then head hight, then refraction, now back to head height? Man.. you jink around more then a Fw190 online! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
to all my discussion in classic pilots club and to some more experts in restoring(got a look on blueprints plus explaining the facts)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Classic pilots club? Experts in restoring? Blueprints *explaining* facts... Funny what with all that I would think you could present something to prove your head height statment. Yet nothing.. Not even an explanation.. Just unfounded statments. Give me something if you want me to buy into your argument.. anything! Just saying it is wrong and calling it a fact does not impress me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
I stay to this: the design of pilots hight of view in general is too low nearly to all planes, some less some more in the running FB-sim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So we should NOT be looking through the GUNSIGHT? We should be looking OVER it or UNDER it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
I'm really interest of Your pics in the future.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dont count on it.. Because I dont have as much time as I use to have.. That and I dont see anything so wrong with the current cockpits to justify going out to chino and taking some pictures.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
By the way:
there was a discussion at LockOn Forum in the past..
as users asked about low pilot sitting of view in some jets.
Answer of developers(faithful): ...we did that for more comfortable viewing in game playing,wathing the instruments....and of course in real the pilot is sitting higher.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I said early on that some games FUDGE the cockpit for game play purposes.. It is pretty understandable that LOCKON would do that in light of the FACT that alot of the JET stuff is not looking out the window but looking at the radar and RWS on said panels.. THAT! And they dont have a FIXED gun sight position like IL-2 does.. it is a thing displayed on the HUD. In short that example does not give any credit to your argument.. apples and oranges.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
I guess, this developer is serious talking the truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well you got the guess part right

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
next steps in advanced view programming are in the pipeline..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, can not be, because someone in this thread pointed out that there is no progress here! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

FALK81
07-18-2004, 04:59 PM
Ok folks.. My two cents:
http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Falk81/cocpitstruts.gif

This is how it is real life.
In the horizontal the same thing applies, exept you have two eyes to look around the struts and a brain that understand wich eye see the important stuff. In addition you can always move your head to the sides.

It would be extremely cool to have all this simulated. Maybe automatic pilot head movements when your target moves behind the struts. (and listen to the crackling sound of your leatherjacket stretching for the perverts..)

But a far easier and "let the end justifie the means" solution is to simply let the struts be see through, but still visible.

One more thing. I think that most books when they say "View was exellent" actually mean that the pilot could SEE his 6, and not work his *** off to look outside.

Falk out!

crazyivan1970
07-18-2004, 05:10 PM
Do you guys even remember what was the topic?

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, 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.

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 05:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FALK81:
Ok folks.. My two cents:
http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Falk81/cocpitstruts.gif

This is how it is real life. In the horizontal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Assuming you dont tilt your head at the neck a little left or right thus making the once horizontal bar no longer horizontal.. That and I am not 100% sure about the inear angle.. (the green n blue blind spot) The blind spots (green blue) would move as you move your head.. thus no real blind spot! Which these two end point examples seem to imply.. as you transition from one to the next the blind spot would move with it. In short you could allways reposition you head to see behind the horzontal sold object to see what is behind it.. assuing you knew something was behind it to look there in the first place! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FALK81:
the same thing applies, exept you have two eyes to look around the struts and a brain that understand wich eye see the important stuff.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>At which point your drawing does not work.. Becuase it only shows one eye.. that clear part that expands out as to make a blind spot would be overlapped by each eye thus filling in the overlap and enabling you to SEE behind the solid object.. Which is why the solid object would appear semi-transparent

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FALK81:
In addition you can always move your head to the sides.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True in both the vertical and horzontal cases.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FALK81:
It would be extremely cool to have all this simulated. Maybe automatic pilot head movements when your target moves behind the struts. (and listen to the crackling sound of your leatherjacket stretching for the perverts..) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FALK81:
But a far easier and "let the end justifie the means" solution is to simply let the struts be see through, but still visible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FALK81:
One more thing. I think that most books when they say "View was exellent" actually mean that the pilot could SEE his 6, and not work his *** off to look outside. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That would be my take on it too!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

BennyMoore
07-18-2004, 06:05 PM
Ash Smart, for love of mud, would you please stop picking apart everyone's post piece by piece like that, and replying to each seperate piece? Not only is it incredibly irritating for everyone to read as well as being hugely space consuming, but it confuses the issue with all of the tiny little subissues. The only person other than you who I've ever seen do this on a board was a lawyer. If you'll notice, in my entire post I will only quote two parts of your post, not fourteen.

Also, you can kindly drop the constant personal attacks and implications and downright statements that anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest is a total fool. I'm all for insulting those who need insulting, or who are blazingly, obviously, laughably, and universally wrong. But you've not yet replied to a single person in this thread without insulting them! In fact, you insult them in each of your replies to each tiny little fragmented subquote, usually!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
Early on I pointed out that 3D artest have said doing LEAN means much more art work.. More work means more time and money spent on doing one cockpit.. Which will most likly mean we will have less aircraft to fly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's where you are wrong. Any three dimensional IL-2 artist who has said this is lying. All of the art in a three dimensional cockpit is done once, and once only. After that, creating a different view, whether is be a turned head or a moved head, is a simple matter of adjusting the "camera." No additional artwork need be modelled. Trust me, I have done work with this in 3D Studio Max. All you have to do to view a three dimensional object (like a cockpit) from a different perspective or point of view is give the camera new coordinates.

It is two dimensional cockpits than need to be redrawn for each additional point of view, since a two dimensional object viewed from any angle but directly head on, is shown to be flat like a panel. IL-2 does not have two dimensional cockpits, or anything two dimensional.

Do you remember Red Baron 3D? There was a normal cockpit view with eight view directions. These were two dimensional, and each one had to be drawn individually. Then there was a three dimensional cockpit of much lower quality (they called it the virtual cockpit view). This was one piece, and you could pan through it smoothly the way the padlock feature on IL-2 does.

Lean is already implemented! It is just that we are not given ability to use it other than with a single preset view, the gunsight view.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
I have lock on and the ZOOM is actually kind of LAME in comparison to IL2's zoom. In that all lock on's zoom does is resize the existing picture.. i.e. the cockpit frames do not move relative to the outside world.. This it is NOT A LEAN FORWARD/BACKWARD.. Where as IL2's zoom does and therefore simulates a LEAN FORWARD/BACKWARD<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're confusing the IL-2 gunsight view with the zoom. IL-2 has zoom just like Lock On ("resize the existing picture...the cockpit frames do not move relative to the outside world"). But IL-2 also has pilot lean in the form of gunsight view. Again, however, the pilot lean is currently uncontrollable. We only have one preset coordinate, which is the gunsight view. But the gunsight view is not the zoom. Zoom is a completely different thing from moving your head closer to something.

I don't like zoom, because human eyes can't do it in real life (zoom is like using binoculars), but I use zoom anyway, because human eyes can see things better than the computer can render them.

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Ash, for love of mud, would you _please_ stop picking apart everyone's post piece by piece like that, and replying to each seperate piece?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Not only is it incredibly irritating for everyone to read as well as being hugely space consuming, but it confuses the issue with all of the tiny little subissues.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it! But I feel it actually is a better method to reply directly to the statment when said as to try and sumarize what they said.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
The only person other than you who I've ever seen do this on a board was a lawyer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well now you have seen an Engineer do it!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Also, you can kindly drop the constant personal attacks and implications that anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest is a total fool.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont feel I do that from the get go.. But after the 4th or 5th time someone does it.. Well sorry but that is my style

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
I'm all for insulting those who need insulting, or who are blazingly, obviously, laughably, and universally wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger.. you and I do the same thing.. But we just draw the line at differnt points.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
But you've not yet replied to a single person in this thread without insulting them! In fact, you insult them in each of your replies to each tiny little fragmented subquote!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.. Take a look at the inital replys.. I think for the most part you will find my very nice! As for Stglr.. well he has issues and still holds a grudge from the last time I spanked him on this topic.. Thus that one might have took off pretty fast

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Here's where you are wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of me stating that is what I was told by other.. ie NOT what I *say* is the case, just what I have been told.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Any three dimensional IL-2 artist who has said this is lying. All of the art in a three dimensional cockpit is done once, and once only. After that, creating a different view, whether is be a turned head or a moved head, is a simple matter of adjusting the "camera." No additional artwork need be modelled. Trust me, I have done work with this in 3D Studio Max. All you have to do to view a three dimensional object (like a cockpit) from a different perspective or point of view is give the camera new coordinates.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I hope you are right! And initally that is the impression I had.. But in a nut shell what I have been told is NOT ALL THE ART IS INITALLY DRAWN.. Thus you would be correct in your statment assuimg it is ALL DRAWN.. But what if it is not? For example.. the Sides of say the GUN SIGHT.. If they know there is not going to be any LEFT or RIGH movment of the POV then there is not need to drawn the LEFT and RIGHT side of things.. LET ALONE WHAT MIGHT BE BEHIND THEM!! Now there appears to be some things drawn BEHIND things in that the Shift-F1 does move UP and DOWN.. But that still does NOT account for the LEFT and RIGHT sides of SOME thnigs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
It is two dimensional cockpits than need to be redrawn for each additional point of view, since a two dimensional object viewed from any angle but directly head on, is shown to be flat like a panel. IL-2 does not have two dimensional cockpits, or anything two dimensional.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Do you remember Red Baron 3D? There was a normal cockpit view with eight view directions. These were two dimensional, and each one had to be drawn individually. Then there was a three dimensional cockpit of much lower quality (they called it the virtual cockpit view). This was one piece, and you could pan through it smoothly the way the padlock feature on IL-2 does.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes I rememeber it.. As a mater of fact that was the first sim that I can remember that attempted to do the semi-transpart thing.. Prob was they did it for the whole cockpit.. ie BAD instead of just the cockpit bars.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Lean is already implemented! It is just that we are not given ability to use it other than with a single preset view, the gunsight view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. and the associated 3D art for it is drawn.. ie the stuff on top.. But the LEFT and RIGHT and BOTTOM stuff may not be.. Again, I dont know, but that is what I am told.. So you can call them WRONG but dont shoot the messanger! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
You're confusing the IL-2 gunsight view with the zoom. IL-2 has zoom just like Lock On ("resize the existing picture...the cockpit frames do not move relative to the outside world"). But IL-2 also has pilot lean in the form of gunsight view. Again, however, the pilot lean is currently uncontrollable. We only have one preset coordinate, which is the gunsight view. But the gunsight view is not the zoom. Zoom is a completely different thing from moving your head closer to something.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your correct I was in error when I said

"Where as IL2's zoom does and therefore simulates a LEAN FORWARD/BACKWARD"

What I should have said was

"Where as IL2's Shift-F1 oes and therefore simulates a LEAN FORWARD/BACKWARD"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
I don't like zoom, because human eyes can't do it in real life (zoom is like using binoculars), but I use zoom anyway, because human eyes can see things better than the computer can render them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You just answered why they added zoom.

BennyMoore
07-18-2004, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
I hope you are right! And initally that is the impression I had.. But in a nut shell what I have been told is NOT ALL THE ART IS INITALLY DRAWN.. Thus you would be correct in your statment assuimg it is ALL DRAWN.. But what if it is not? For example.. the Sides of say the GUN SIGHT.. If they know there is not going to be any LEFT or RIGH movment of the POV then there is not need to drawn the LEFT and RIGHT side of things.. LET ALONE WHAT MIGHT BE BEHIND THEM!! Now there appears to be some things drawn BEHIND things in that the Shift-F1 does move UP and DOWN.. But that still does NOT account for the LEFT and RIGHT sides of SOME thnigs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah! That makes perfect sense. So, I must rewrite my statement. "All of the art in a three dimensional cockpit should be done once, and once only. After that, creating a different view, whether is be a turned head or a moved head, is a simple matter of adjusting the "camera" and no additional artwork need be modelled, providing that the artwork was done completely and correctly the first time."

In essense, what the artists are telling you is that they did not complete the cockpit the first time because they did not think that people would be able to see the uncompleted parts.

I remember reading that when the Frenchman who made the Statue of Liberty was working on the head, he sculpted hair, even though no one would see it. He never guessed that someday it would be seen from the air, but his work paid off!

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Ah! That makes perfect sense. So, I must rewrite my statement. "All of the art in a three dimensional cockpit _should be_ done once, and once only. After that, creating a different view, whether is be a turned head or a moved head, is a simple matter of adjusting the "camera" and no additional artwork need be modelled, _providing that the artwork was done completely and correctly the first time_."

In essense, what the artists are telling you is that they did not complete the cockpit the first time because they did not think that people would be able to see the uncompleted parts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
I remember reading that when the Frenchman who made the Statue of Liberty was working on the head, he sculpted hair, even though no one would see it. He never guessed that someday it would be seen from the air, but his work paid off!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmmm interesting.. maybe he was thinking of a ballon that might pass by.. 1880s right? Were alot of ballons floating around about that time.. Eitherway, glad to see he had the vision to do it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

IVJG51_Swine
07-18-2004, 06:30 PM
A little OT:Hey Starfighter. I have the video cam footage from the inside of the 190A in the San Antonio museum. The problem is that they was like a TON of $$$ to take it from 8MM to be downloaded to disc or DVD. I will try to figure it out though. I haven't had time lately but we will see what I can do.

The AC does not have the Rev 12 or 16 though. I will tell you guys this though. There is a bar that is raised slightly at the bottom. The point is that the gun site would have been raised just above it as so not to interfere with the site system. It's as simple as that.

Here is the other point. When I was in the cockpit I sat much higher then what you see in the sim. Kind of like what you see in the ME262 shift F1 view.

Once I get the footage figured out I will try to post it. It was pretty cool.

I'm also going to send it to the Oleg crew to check out for the future...

More OT: I think what we need is a higher view in the cockpit similiar to what we see in the ME262 shift F1 view. That might help out tremendously even in the zero.
http://images.snapfish.com/33%3B33%3C7523232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3A%3D6%3B%3A%3 D437%3DXROQDF%3E2323539%3A2%3A5%3A8ot1lsi
http://images.snapfish.com/33%3B33%3C7523232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3A%3D6%3B%3A%3 D437%3DXROQDF%3E2323472%3C555%3C7ot1lsi

www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

[This message was edited by IVJG51_Swine on Sun July 18 2004 at 05:48 PM.]

BennyMoore
07-18-2004, 06:49 PM
Is Oleg a short guy? I'm not being sarcastic; this could truly affect his view of the cockpit. When I took flight lessons in a Cessna, I was fifteen and a good deal shorter than I am now. I couldn't see the cowling (let alone over it) unless I sat on a pillow. For that reason I was always walking around the airfield with a pillow. I wonder what the taller pilots thought.

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 08:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Is Oleg a short guy? I'm not being sarcastic; this could truly affect his view of the cockpit. When I took flight lessons in a Cessna, I was fifteen and a good deal shorter than I am now. I couldn't see the cowling (let alone over it) unless I sat on a pillow. For that reason I was always walking around the airfield with a pillow. I wonder what the taller pilots thought.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont know.. But I dont recal any of Oleg's arguments for the Fw190 cockpit being based on him personally sitting in one.. From what I remember he only defended the 3D layout dementions wise.. ala blueprint wise.. And he contents it is spot on! With that said I will take Oleg's word on it over anything anyone has presented here thus far! But, everyone.. and I think even Oleg acknolwed that light refraction is not modeled.. Therefore the view in the Fw190 is as if there is NO GLASS in the frames.. Thus no refraction.. Thus the bar at the bottom looks much thicker than it would in real life.. Just about everyone here agrees on that.. What some dont agree on or seem to understand is that it aint easy to fix and or adj it within the current engine.. From what I can tell, if they *did* fudge the 3D art to *account* for the lack of light refraction.. i.e. make the bar thinner than it would be in real life.. you would than be staring into the cowling.. Thus not gaining anything!!! Someone posted a nice side shot that showed the line of sight from the pilots head through the gunsight.. And it did look like that would be the case.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Agamemnon22
07-18-2004, 09:01 PM
To clarify the cockpit art issue:
The key to making game art is efficiency. It's not that things aren't done to save effort, actually sometimes it's far easier to make something completely rather than in chunks. The reason some thing or another isn't made is because while you may never see it, the graphics processor still considers all the information associated with it. This wastes memory and clock cycles and results in loss of frame rate. Obviously the left side of the gunsight or something isn't going to kill your frame rate, but add enough detail and your rig will grind to a halt.

So it is in fact the game artist's perrogative to make the cockpit as efficient as possible. Since there is limited head motion in the game as is, the artists look and say "Well, this part will never be seen, so let's take it out, save a few polygons".

Now, if you wanted to implement a system with turning and swinging heads, you'd need to fill in all those parts that were never supposed to be seen and were removed. If you don't, the illusion breaks down. You can see the effect in action by climbing into a P-47, going to gunsight view and looking to the lower 3 o'clock IIRC.

That said, I don't believe it's SUCH a huge undertaking to add all the extra detail to a single plane, but to re-do the entire fleet will take literally years. I'd rather OM and co. spend those years perfecting BoB (which I believe was promised to have completely moveable head anyway).

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 09:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Agamemnon22:
To clarify the cockpit art issue:
The key to making game art is efficiency. It's not that things aren't done to save effort, actually sometimes it's far easier to make something completely rather than in chunks. The reason some thing or another isn't made is because while you may never see it, the graphics processor still considers all the information associated with it. This wastes memory and clock cycles and results in loss of frame rate. Obviously the left side of the gunsight or something isn't going to kill your frame rate, but add enough detail and your rig will grind to a halt.

So it is in fact the game artist's perrogative to make the cockpit as efficient as possible. Since there is limited head motion in the game as is, the artists look and say "Well, this part will never be seen, so let's take it out, save a few polygons".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good point!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Agamemnon22:
Now, if you wanted to implement a system with turning and swinging heads, you'd need to fill in all those parts that were never supposed to be seen and were removed. If you don't, the illusion breaks down. You can see the effect in action by climbing into a P-47, going to gunsight view and looking to the lower 3 o'clock IIRC.

That said, I don't believe it's SUCH a huge undertaking to add all the extra detail to a single plane, but to re-do the entire fleet will take literally years. I'd rather OM and co. spend those years perfecting BoB (which I believe was promised to have completely moveable head anyway).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>At this point I would tend to agree.. IL-2 was years ahead of it's time.. And currently is just now starting to shows it's age.. That says alot for Oleg and the team! In light of the fact that a YEAR in game making is like forever!! Yet some here just dont see it that way.. They either just dont get it.. Or were not around when getting one patch from a sim maker was like pullin teath let alone multi patches that added free and new stuff.. Or they have an axe to grind and trying to promote something else.. All in all it is sad that folks can not sit back and realise just how good they got it.. Human Nature.. What you going to do! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

IVJG51_Swine
07-18-2004, 09:54 PM
"I will take Oleg's word on it over anything anyone has presented here thus far!"

Well ASH_Smart you must have not seen Cirx's report. It clearly indicates with proof that you are incorrect. Do you remember it? Have you been around long enough to see that report?

IVJG51_Swine
07-18-2004, 10:01 PM
I just read some of the previous posts. There is a ton of proof out there that has been documented. You just haven't seen it or you are a troll just stirring up BS.

www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2004, 10:21 PM
Hard for him to see any proof with his fanboi blinders on.

It's everywhere with ASH_SMART. Bring up something and he says, "Where's your proof?" Show him proof, and it's "That doesn't prove anything", ignores the input, or some such other spin. He can't be convinced that anything Oleg does isn't irrefutable gold.

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 11:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IVJG51_Swine:
Well ASH_Smart you must have not seen Cirx's report. It clearly indicates with proof that you are incorrect. Do you remember it? Have you been around long enough to see that report?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I have been around for some time.. But that does not mean I have seen let alone read everything posted.. So I will have to say no to seeing Cirx's report.. In light of Cirx's report not being mentioned and or alluded to within this current post I still think my statment holds.. ie nothing has been presented HERE to prove otherwise.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IVJG51_Swine:
I just read some of the previous posts. There is a ton of proof out there that has been documented. You just haven't seen it or you are a troll just stirring up BS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well bring it! I have an open mind.. But before you do.. Tell me just one thing.. Just what is it you think I disagree with? There has been a few things mentioned within this thread.. We started off with the ZERO cockpit bars.. moved onto other ways to simulate things (head lean, semi-trans) and danced around a few other things along the way.. Where one of them had to do with the Fw190 forward view. So, inlight of all that.. would you mind being a bit more specific as to what this report is to prove? Thanks!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-18-2004, 11:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Hard for him to see any proof with his fanboi blinders on.

It's everywhere with ASH_SMART. Bring up something and he says, "Where's your proof?" Show him proof, and it's "That doesn't prove anything", ignores the input, or some such other spin. He can't be convinced that anything Oleg does isn't irrefutable gold.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Man I really got to you didnt I?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

crazyivan1970
07-19-2004, 12:30 AM
To lock or not to lock... oh, and you two should get a room http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, 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.

starfighter1
07-19-2004, 01:20 AM
hi,
that's what I'm talking all the time not even about only this IL-2/FB sim.
In general we have problems of a 'one view sytem to all planes'.
Just remember that pics in the past someone showed different cockpit forward view layers on up on the others in transparent outfit.

In real planes the pilot or mechanic adjust the hight of pilots seat to the individual pilots size and in warbirds the correct gunsight view compare to the pilots hight of eyes.

Such a feature we need in BoB !

Of course there are some design problems: german revis /gyroscopes are not centered and more near and right to the armored windscreen
...refraction problems ..etc

But anyway: exact videos and pics from the point of pilot eyes can work out with spezial camera types mounted at spectacles as I saw this by a pilot in his acrobatic plane Extra 300.

by the way..hehe..that's could be a good job to ASH_SMART... engineering talents are welcome ..

Next: Peter van de Vries from South-Africa and his team are preparing a gunsight view(Revi 14c/revi 16b) restoringin several historic
warbirds. Good basework for next better designs

link again: http://www.triplane.net/



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IVJG51_Swine:
A little OThttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.giff pilots eHey Starfighter. I have the video cam footage from the inside of the 190A in the San Antonio museum. The problem is that they was like a TON of $$$ to take it from 8MM to be downloaded to disc or DVD. I will try to figure it out though. I haven't had time lately but we will see what I can do.

The AC does not have the Rev 12 or 16 though. I will tell you guys this though. There is a bar that is raised slightly at the bottom. The point is that the gun site would have been raised just above it as so not to interfere with the site system. It's as simple as that.

Here is the other point. When I was in the cockpit I sat much higher then what you see in the sim. Kind of like what you see in the ME262 shift F1 view.

Once I get the footage figured out I will try to post it. It was pretty cool.

I'm also going to send it to the Oleg crew to check out for the future...

More OT: I think what we need is a higher view in the cockpit similiar to what we see in the ME262 shift F1 view. That might help out tremendously even in the zero.
http://images.snapfish.com/33%3B33%3C7523232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3A%3D6%3B%3A%3 D437%3DXROQDF%3E2323539%3A2%3A5%3A8ot1lsi
http://images.snapfish.com/33%3B33%3C7523232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3A%3D6%3B%3A%3 D437%3DXROQDF%3E2323472%3C555%3C7ot1lsi

http://www.jg51.net

[This message was edited by IVJG51_Swine on Sun July 18 2004 at 05:48 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

starfighter1
07-19-2004, 01:39 AM
hi,
indeed ...
but normally the cockpit construction design of a Zero let to the komplex problems of virtual pilots view.

by the way : what about the search function in this forum programm. It does not work back to many statements of the past. Is there a way to bring up a archiv structure as the users have at simhq ?

A way a lot of long repeats to those who startet with comments we knew from the past that will lead to nothing could be closed soon.

Same to me: I'm try to make it short and looking for some threats of the past as a reference to the current discussion.
Ideas and help is welcome..


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Do you guys even remember what was the topic?
ZV!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, 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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fillmore
07-19-2004, 03:02 AM
That non gunsight view in the 262 gives the dillusion of a better view, but I think the nose blocks most of your "extra" view and you end up seeing less. Then again placebos really do work, so maybe there is something to be said for it (I even use it myself lol).

I am not sure how the pilot could have the gunsight at whatever height he wanted, there are limits to where the guns can be aimed, and if you moved it up very high from the factory position you would have to tilt it to point at the convergence, wouldn't you? I saw a D-13 (or maybe just a recreation of one? It was in a museum around Seattle) next to a Corsair, and boy that D-13 cockpit was way lower and sunken into the body of the plane as compared to the Corsair.

What I hate most about the Zero's cockpit is that you cannot see any guages whatsoever with the normal widest angle view. Seems like you would want them mounted a little higher in the cockpit so you could see them without looking so far down. But I blame Mitsubishi for that, not Oleg.

Of course none of these cockpits look at all like sitting in the real thing does, they can't, because they aren't. Hold your finger between your face and the screen, focus on the screen and notice that the finger obscures nothing, now focus on your finger and notice how much of the screen is obscured. Real 3-dimensional space viewed through 2 human eyes is vastly different than can be properly portrayed by projecting 3-dimensional space onto a 2-dimensional screen and then looking at it in 3-dimensional space with 2 human eyes. There are rules in place which govern how to translate/transform the real cockpits onto our computer screens, you follow those rules with the blueprints you have, and you get what you get. A map of France isn't France, it is a map. IL2:FB's ingame Zero cockpit isn't a real Zero's cockpit, but I am sure it is derived from a real Zero's cockpit using the same rules as other cockpits (though the rules may have changed since the beginning so newer cockpits may conform to different rules, I don't know) project the surface of the spherical Earth's surface onto a flat piece of paper and you lose something in the translation. You project a real airplane's cockpit into the game engine and you lose some things in the translation.

That's just the way it is, and having numerous multi-page threads about them isn't going to change anything, nor can it change anything.

You think maybe you want the rules that govern how you translate real cockpits into virtual ones changed? Careful what you wish for, you may end up living in interesting times.

Ahh, that felt good, I havn't put up a long rambling post in a while http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

IVJG51_Swine
07-19-2004, 06:33 AM
I disagree totally with you there Fillmore. The shift F1 view on the ME262 allows for much easier navigation and general flight - not for combat though but everything else I would say a big YES....
As to ASH_SMART's his reply that he has never seen Cirx's reports and probably any of the others damages his credibility tremendously in my book, sorry...

www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

ASH at S-MART
07-19-2004, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IVJG51_Swine:
As to ASH_SMART's his reply that he has never seen Cirx's reports and probably any of the others damages his credibility tremendously in my book, sorry...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! First off you have not even said what it is your talking about.. Secondly this *report* must be some pieace of work if you can not present it here.. Which how did you say it? "damages your credibility tremendously in my book, sorry.." Wow.. Did that feel as good for you as it did for me? I didnt realise typing unfounded statments was so much fun!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-19-2004, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
that's what I'm talking all the time not even about only this IL-2/FB sim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is very differnt from your inital post of bull****, wrong, no progress.. So let's see what it is your talking about NOW

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
In general we have problems of a 'one view sytem to all planes'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Just remember that pics in the past someone showed different cockpit forward view layers on up on the others in transparent outfit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
In real planes the pilot or mechanic adjust the hight of pilots seat to the individual pilots size and in warbirds the correct gunsight view compare to the pilots hight of eyes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! News Flash Just in... THAT IS EXACTALLY WHAT WE HAVE IN IL2! Except for some of the Shift-F1 views where it may move to center for some off center gunsight or move up to give a better view of the world.. but not through the gunsight anymore.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Such a feature we need in BoB !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We HAVE IT NOW!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Of course there are some design problems: german revis /gyroscopes are not centered and more near and right to the armored windscreen
...refraction problems ..etc <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So.. they should redraw the cockpits and toss out the blueprints and just fake the whole thing.. like the zero in Targetware seems to be? That is one was to addresses it.. One way I would not like to see happen

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
But anyway: exact videos and pics from the point of pilot eyes can work out with spezial camera types mounted at spectacles as I saw this by a pilot in his acrobatic plane Extra 300. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So there are plenty of pictures from the cockpit of warbirds.. But hardly any if any through the gunsight level.. in that most dont have gunsights anymore.. The sim simulates gunfight not tour rides

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
by the way..hehe..that's could be a good job to ASH_SMART... engineering talents are welcome .. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont think they could afford my talents! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Next: Peter van de Vries from South-Africa and his team are preparing a gunsight view(Revi 14c/revi 16b) restoringin several historic
warbirds. Good basework for next better designs<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Real aircraft are allways good to have.. blueprints too.. But only if you plan to draw them in detail.. Which you just got done saying you didnt want.. cake and eat it too?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-19-2004, 10:06 AM
Makes you wonder why ASH chooses his particular http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gifsignature graphic. I bet that robotic right hand is the one he {******} with while he's saying "Yessir!" and parroting the party line.

starfighter1
07-19-2004, 10:32 AM
hi,
ASH_SMART
please use the forum search(type in the several user names and make Your decision later on)
A lot information about this view and design problems in the past.
There You can find a lot of arguments(some like Your's old shoes) pics,links and reports.
It does not make sens to repeat all the same different points again because ASH_SMART likes the debate once more.
This 'horse is not dead' but well and deeply discussed.
At the moment we are looking forward to more progress and better design in next Addons and sims like BoB.
There is a comment sense in all forums about this points...but nevertheless You are free to argue on base of Your knowledge and personall view ...

By the way: some third party designers (I know one, who designed many cockpits to a online WW-II combatsim) can design some new planes to FB/ACE by fixing some 'overframed' struts and bars. If the developer likes to import them ???

Changes of virtual pilots view/combat view and integrating a opportunity to adjust the seat and hight of view to different planes cockpit is a hard job of recoding the game engine.... but possible as this designer and expert in 3DMax told me...

So we are looking forward on criticical base reflection of this old design engine of IL-2.

Over and out ..
thx

starfighter1
07-19-2004, 10:46 AM
hi,
ASH_SMART
just a link to think about: takes a bit time to read...so long

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/jimlong/a6m1_part2.htm



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Next: Peter van de Vries from South-Africa and his team are preparing a gunsight view(Revi 14c/revi 16b) restoringin several historic
warbirds. Good basework for next better designs<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Real aircraft are allways good to have.. blueprints too.. But only if you plan to draw them in detail.. Which you just got done saying you didnt want.. cake and eat it too?

starfighter1
07-19-2004, 10:55 AM
hi,
and here some more...pilots hight...

http://www.pluth.net/captured/capturedfrom/origtaic/TAIC1/taic_1.htm

http://www.pluth.net/captured/capturedfrom/origtaic/TAIC1/taic_1.htm


arfighter1:
hi,
ASH_SMART
just a link to think about: takes a bit time to read...so long

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/jimlong/a6m1_part2.htm

http://www.pluth.net/captured/

ASH at S-MART
07-19-2004, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
ASH_SMART
please use the forum search(type in the several user names and make Your decision later on)
A lot information about this view and design problems in the past.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>About *this* view and *design* problems.. Just *what* view and *design* problem are you refering too? You are all over the map here..

Can you sumarize in one sentenc just *what* it is that is wrong with the view and design problem..

And please.. make them two seperate statments.. That is first tell me what is wrong with *this* view and then go on to describe how the *design* makes *that* view a problem.

In that in doing so I think you will answer your own questions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
There You can find a lot of arguments(some like Your's old shoes) pics,links and reports.
It does not make sens to repeat all the same different points again because ASH_SMART likes the debate once more.
This 'horse is not dead' but well and deeply discussed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If what you say is true and all the ansewers and proof are out there.. And have been there for 2+ years.. And you have been apart of it.. Then it should be easy for you to dispute what I have said.. But, in light of your comments above.. I think we are not even on the same page.. So, please, restate your so called *view* and *design* problem.. For example

The *view* problem is due to XXXXX
The *desin* problem is due to XXXXX

In that once you CLEARLY state the two then and only then can I help you

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
At the moment we are looking forward to more progress and better design in next Addons and sims like BoB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cant have progress untill you understand where you are and where you want to go.. So please tell me just what this *view* problem is you keep alluding to but never really say.. Dont be like IVJG51_Swine who says your wrong about something but does not even bother to tell you what it is he is talking about.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
There is a comment sense in all forums about this points...but nevertheless You are free to argue on base of Your knowledge and personall view ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. all true.. But I am not sure what it is your talking about.. Thus I am asking.. Initally you just stepped in here and called the whole thing bull****, wrong, no-progress and when pressed on the subjet.. ie ask to expalin you would change to a differnt topic.. So many times that I know dont know excatlly what it is your saying is wrong.. I can guess and have a good idea.. something to do with HEAD HEIGHT but I would rather you clearly state it before I waste my time showing how the head height is just fine as is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
By the way: some third party designers (I know one, who designed many cockpits to a online WW-II combatsim) can design some new planes to FB/ACE by fixing some 'overframed' struts and bars. If the developer likes to import them ???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Great

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Changes of virtual pilots view/combat view and integrating a opportunity to adjust the seat and hight of view to different planes cockpit is a hard job of recoding the game engine.... but possible as this designer and expert in 3DMax told me...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Anything is posable.. Espically in a perfect world where $ grows on trees and time stands still.. But here in this world that is not the case.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
So we are looking forward on criticical base reflection of this old design engine of IL-2.

Over and out ..
thx<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well you can look forward to winning the loto on Sat too

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-19-2004, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
and here some more...pilots hight...

http://www.pluth.net/captured/capturedfrom/origtaic/TAIC1/taic_1.htm

http://www.pluth.net/captured/capturedfrom/origtaic/TAIC1/taic_1.htm

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neat pictures.. but I dont understand you point here? Is it that pilots could adj the seat? If so I totally agree.. But dont think that sitting that high in the saddle during TAXI is the same position you would use when trying to shoot.. ie look through the gun sight..

In short they didnt sit that high during flight.. Dont belive me? Note in these pictures that they would NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO CLOSE THE CANOPY because thier heads are in the way.

http://www.pluth.net/captured/capturedfrom/origtaic/TAIC1/wings-koga1.jpg
http://www.pluth.net/captured/capturedfrom/origtaic/TAIC1/wings-koga2.jpg

In summary, if your arguing that pilots could adj their seats.. Well I dont think you will find anyone that would disagree with you! But to be able to shoot they would also have to adj the seat much MUCH lower to get thier eyes level with the gun sight.. Which is exactally what we have in Il2 and other GUN SIGHT flight sims.. ie not Jet sims where the HUD is the gunsight that just floats around.

So agian.. I think it is time for you tor restate your statement.. Because I dont know what it is you think is wrong with the sim

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

starfighter1
07-19-2004, 03:43 PM
hi,
I guess there is nothing more to say ...
the development of PF + BoB is going on forward and myself and other users talked about enough to this points in the past.

The topic of this threat: size of cockpit construction of ZERO...

it's waste of time to discuss with people who use sophistic logic to argue the world could be like a 'banana'
or should I say 'born on a banana boat'

OK: my dear ASH_SMART... next time I'l give You a link where to get the right stuff that a Gyroscope /Revi were moved up to the correct hight of pilots view.
Never go down into a gnomish view ...
only gnomish trolls can use that in combatview by stearing the plane...
by up to next time... and please take time to get all old threats even also at www.simhq.com (http://www.simhq.com)
a lot of interest stuff and information

ASH at S-MART
07-19-2004, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
I guess there is nothing more to say ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I am glad that you realise you error! Glad I could help!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
the development of PF + BoB is going on forward<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bet!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
and myself and other users talked about enough to this points in the past.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What points?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
The topic of this threat: size of cockpit construction of ZERO...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, ok, so those pictures where you said look the height of the head of the guy sitting in the zero had nothing to do with the height of the head and you ment to say look at the cockpit construction? Gee why didnt you just say so! Ok, so the topic is ZERO cokpit construction.. So.. What is it that is wrong?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
it's waste of time to discuss with people who use sophistic logic to argue the world could be like a 'banana'
or should I say 'born on a banana boat'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No but you should at least stick to one banana at a time! Jumping from complaning about the size of the banana and then switching to complaing about the color when someone asks you what is wrong abou the size only shows your were in error about the size

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
OK: my dear ASH_SMART... next time<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Allways next time.. or IN THE FUTURE! All will be revield.. Well that might work with the bible... But not for flight simulation!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
I'l give You a link where to get the right stuff that a Gyroscope /Revi were moved up to the correct hight of pilots view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Funny.. I thought you said the topic was the ZERO cockpit constrution.. Now we are talking about the Fw190 forward view again.. The thing that we all allready agreed is in error.. Well thanks for proving my point.. You are all over the map! Hard to help (hit) a moving target!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Never go down into a gnomish view ... only gnomish trolls can use that in combatview by stearing the plane...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Never go down into the COMBAT POSITION where your eyes are inline with the gunsight and thus looking at the point off in space where your bullets will go? Hmmm might work in MS FLIGHT SIM when flying through the grand canyon.. but not here!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
by up to next time... and please take time to get all old threats even also at http://www.simhq.com
a lot of interest stuff and information<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Will do.. And let me know when your A.D.D meds come in and you can stick to one topic at a time within one reply! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

starfighter1
07-20-2004, 02:39 AM
hi,
if You want to discuss this further on You are free to open a new threat to discuss this complex problems to all planes of the game step by step.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,


[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
I'l give You a link where to get the right stuff that a Gyroscope /Revi were moved up to the correct hight of pilots view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Funny.. I thought you said the topic was the ZERO cockpit constrution.. Now we are talking about the Fw190 forward view again.. The thing that we all allready agreed is in error.. Well thanks for proving my point.. You are all over the map! Hard to help (hit) a moving target!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Never go down into a gnomish view ... only gnomish trolls can use that in combatview by stearing the plane...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Never go down into the COMBAT POSITION where your eyes are inline with the gunsight and thus looking at the point off in space where your bullets will go? Hmmm might work in MS FLIGHT SIM when flying through the grand canyon.. but not here!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
by up to next time... and please take time to get all old threats even also at http://www.simhq.com
a lot of interest stuff and information<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Will do.. And let me know when your A.D.D meds come in and you can stick to one topic at a time within one reply! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

starfighter1
07-20-2004, 04:39 AM
hi,
this is the future of sims even to BoB( maybe small systems of homebuild kits could be available)

http://simhardware.org/index.html

no more problems and discussion of 'wrong' design by artists who are exact in reading blueprints but not able(or mix it up) to transport it with some 'cuts' to desktop systems compare to pilot's eyes view (even in hight)in real warbirds ..

starfighter1
07-20-2004, 05:05 AM
hi,
ASH_SMART ..some links as announced..
some more links : here german forum:
http://nsu.kg51.de/nest/Frame1.htm
http://ubbxforums-de.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=59010161&f=388104122&m=683102335

http://www.warbirdsalive.com/wblist/german/fw190/fw190y9.htm



[QUOTE]Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:

ASH at S-MART
07-20-2004, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
if You want to discuss this further on You are free to open a new threat to discuss this complex problems to all planes of the game step by step.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Discuss *what* further?

I allready explained to you the error you made about head height... Was there something else you needed help on?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-20-2004, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
this is the future of sims even to BoB( maybe small systems of homebuild kits could be available)

ASH HOUSEWARES [url="http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav"]GROOVY (http://simhardware.org/index.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No that is not the future.. Building realistic hardware to look like a real WWII cockpit will never be feasable.. Not for the average person.. You might be able to afford one.. Say a Spitfire.. But then what do you do when you switch to a Fw190? Build another cockpit? PLEASE! The future of flight sims will be Head Mounted Displays (HMD) and interactive gloves with the simply advancments in the current crop of joysticks, throttles, rudders, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
no more problems and discussion of 'wrong' design by artists who are exact in reading blueprints but not able(or mix it up) to transport it with some 'cuts' to desktop systems compare to pilot's eyes view (even in hight)in real warbirds ..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good luck.. But I guess 'your' build a cockpit way seems G2G in a world where $ grows on trees?

[B)[/B]
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

starfighter1
07-20-2004, 04:25 PM
hi,
if You nean gyroscope tech I know wat You mean.
takes time...NASA is kissing You..




<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
this is the future of sims even to BoB( maybe small systems of homebuild kits could be available)

[URL=http://simhardware.org/index.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No that is not the future.. Building realistic hardware to look like a real WWII cockpit will never be feasable.. Not for the average person.. You might be able to afford one.. Say a Spitfire.. But then what do you do when you switch to a Fw190? Build another cockpit? PLEASE! The future of flight sims will be Head Mounted Displays (HMD) and interactive gloves with the simply advancments in the current crop of joysticks, throttles, rudders, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
no more problems and discussion of 'wrong' design by artists who are exact in reading blueprints but not able(or mix it up) to transport it with some 'cuts' to desktop systems compare to pilot's eyes view (even in hight)in real warbirds ..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good luck.. But I guess 'your' build a cockpit way seems G2G in a world where $ grows on trees?

_ASH HOUSEWARES_ http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav__
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASH at S-MART
07-20-2004, 10:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
if You nean gyroscope tech I know wat You mean.
takes time...NASA is kissing You..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. your welcome?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Dnmy
07-21-2004, 01:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jieitai_Tsunami:
I was hosting a game today and chatting with some one a little.
I said the Zero cockpit was so hard to look out from! and all seems to point to the real view from the pit to be better than, almost all US aircraft! Not just the 6 but sides too!
So this lack of view takes away one of the main advantages of the Zero...

The Zero cockpit window struts are three or four times to thick! Has any one noticed this?

It must be fixed....And I am sure the dev team could at least remove 1/4 of the width from the slats without much effort.

Check photos below with this site:

http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/dave_pluth/blayd/blayd.htm

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero2.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero3.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero4.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero5.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero7.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero6.jpg

http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/Images/Main%20logo.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good points man.

Just remember the Revi gunsight for the German planes. Its size has been half of what it is now for a long time, beginning with IL2. The devs made a mistake with the size of the Revi and corrected it. Albeit a bit late, they still fixed it.

So who's to say they didn't make a mistake with the size of every one of the cockpit struts? Right! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

--------------------------------

"killstealing only exists in the minds of score*****s"

starfighter1
07-21-2004, 05:21 AM
hi,
there are also some on jap.websites I saw in the past (historical pics of inside/outside views, which show the construction/also blueprints + sizes ) and even of jap. pilots eyes heigt in horizontal flight.
Hope to get the information soon from my contact in Japan.
Meanwhile ASH_SMART is going on to tell more tall stories.
Anyway: also him the penny will dropped..



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dnmy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jieitai_Tsunami:
I was hosting a game today and chatting with some one a little.
I said the Zero cockpit was so hard to look out from! and all seems to point to the real view from the pit to be better than, almost all US aircraft! Not just the 6 but sides too!
So this lack of view takes away one of the main advantages of the Zero...

The Zero cockpit window struts are three or four times to thick! Has any one noticed this?

It must be fixed....And I am sure the dev team could at least remove 1/4 of the width from the slats without much effort.

Check photos below with this site:

http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/dave_pluth/blayd/blayd.htm

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero2.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero3.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero4.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero5.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero7.jpg

http://jieitai.bravehost.com/Forum%20images/Incorrect%20zero6.jpg

http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/http://www.jieitai.bravehost.com/Images/Main%20logo.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good points man.

Just remember the Revi gunsight for the German planes. Its size has been half of what it is now for a long time, beginning with IL2. The devs made a mistake with the size of the Revi and corrected it. Albeit a bit late, they still fixed it.

So who's to say they didn't make a mistake with the size of every one of the cockpit struts? Right! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

--------------------------------

"killstealing only exists in the minds of score*****s"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

starfighter1
07-21-2004, 05:30 AM
hi,
Dnmy
re my links...
please remember that the pilots were sittung on his paraschute in original ...



[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
ASH_SMART ..some links as announced..
some more links : here german forum:
http://nsu.kg51.de/nest/Frame1.htm
http://ubbxforums-de.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=59010161&f=388104122&m=683102335

http://www.warbirdsalive.com/wblist/german/fw190/fw190y9.htm

starfighter1
07-21-2004, 06:03 AM
hi,
Dnmy...same Problem of some over modelled struts in Me-108 E/F ...'Erla'..and normally the pilots can see the cowling ...

OK: too late to fix all designs in so many differents planes of the game. Let's wait for next updates to PF for more information...
or have a look to:http://www.netwings.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi
http://www.netwings.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID43&conf=DCConfID1

Anyway:we are looking forward to Bob.
The developer will give his best ...and got a lot of new stuff to this...




[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dnmy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jieitai_Tsunami:

starfighter1
07-21-2004, 08:40 AM
hi,
here a link about ZERO: attention to the pics/cockpit construction and pilots height of forward view/


http://www.kotfsc.com/thunderbolt/zero.htm
a lot of stuff here:http://www.sam.hi-ho.ne.jp/ki-44/

http://www.kotfsc.com/thunderbolt/graphics/zero-main.jpg


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dnmy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jieitai_Tsunami:

starfighter1
07-21-2004, 08:42 AM
re,
http://www.sam.hi-ho.ne.jp/ki-44/

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Meanwhile ASH_SMART is going on to tell more tall stories.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Tall Stories? Oh.. I get it.. So when I take the time to explain exactly what it is I'm talking about.. you consider that to be a tall story.. and thus a bad thing? Huh.. Well that does explain why you only talk in generality and never really say what it is your talking about.. Much easier to just make general unfounded statements like bull****, wrong, no progress.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Anyway: also him the penny will dropped..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A penny would be more than anything you have provided thus far!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

[This message was edited by ASH_SMART on Wed July 21 2004 at 08:20 AM.]

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
here a link about ZERO: attention to the pics/cockpit construction and pilots height of forward view/
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As for head heights

The point you keep missing here is the difference between simulation and real life.. In real life one could adj his chair a little higher then the firing position.. i.e. eyes level with the gun sight. Thus looking out into space where the bullets would go. All he would have to do is LEAN forward and down a few inches and he would bring his eyes to that level.. Not sure if combat pilots did this or just the ones on a pleasure cruse like the guy in this photo

http://www.kotfsc.com/thunderbolt/graphics/zero-main.jpg

But there are tons of pictures out there where the tops of guys heads vary... In light of the FACT that most pictures we see are ground shots.. i.e. the plan TAXING we get the FALSE impression that pilots sat very high up.. They sat high up while TAXING because they didn't want to run into something.. and they knew the chance of having to shoot while TAXING was very low.

All in all pictures of different head heights only proves that the pilot could adj his head height.. It does not prove that is where he had his head while shooting.. We don't get many pictures of guys from WWII in flight and shooting at an enemy aircraft.. Because they had better things to do then take pictures! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

A pretty simple concept really.. one you seem to keep missing

As for cockpit bars

I don't know if they are the right thicknesses or not on the zero.. I only know that you and yours have not presented anything to prove otherwise.. The pictures on the 1st page that were added later compare the EXTERIOR 3D art to real zero pictures.. But, from what I have been told, the EXTERIOR 3D art of the cockpit has NOTHING to do with the INTERIOR 3D art. As a mater of FACT someone posted a picture awhile back that showed a 109 that had the cross bar at the top of the canopy in the EXTERIOR 3D art.. Yet in the INTERIOR 3D art it was not there.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
Dnmy...same Problem of some over modelled struts in Me-108 E/F ...'Erla'..and normally the pilots can see the cowling ...

OK: too late to fix all designs in so many differents planes of the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fix? You say that as if you have proven they are broken? Which is not to say I think they are good as is.. Only that you have not provided anything to prove they are not correct.. I trust the 3D artiest spent more time looking at pictures and blueprint then you did.. That and anyone can play the word games you and yours have played.. The original poster said.. and I quote

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jieitai_Tsunami:
So this lack of view takes away one of the main advantages of the Zero...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I am sure you can find some out of context link on some web sight that will say the same thing.. But one can also find the opposite statement.. and I quote

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>From http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avzero.html:
The sliding canopy gave excellent all-round vision, though it featured a "greenhouse" style bracing structure that caused a degree of visual obstruction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Note excellent *all around* yet *visual obstruction*

I personally think the current IL-2 ZERO has those qualities.. But who am I to say?

My point is simple.. I don't know if the zero cockpit is correct or not.. But I do know this.. you and yours have NOT presented anything to prove that is it incorrect!!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2004, 11:03 AM
More fuel for the fire (and sure to infuriate ASH_DUMB, who won't accept any proof anyway)

Here's the latest standard viewpoint from the Targetware 0.62 (http://www.targetware.net) Zero cockpit:

http://www.naysayers.com/Zekepit_062.jpg

FOV has been moved in a bit...but you can still see much better from it than IL-2; sorta looks like that picture, though ASH_DUMB is to obstinate to admit it.

Also, TW 0.62 has added the ability to "lean" (although, where is one to put those extra buttons and switches), the ability to remember view tweaks for each aircraft, and also a set of views you can toggle through for each plane, like a "instrument view" for the Zero, a throttle quadrant and trim view, a fuel console view, etc. for that same plane.

Crewable positions have started to appear, too... moving right along!!!

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
More fuel for the fire (and sure to infuriate ASH_DUMB, who won't accept any proof anyway)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Ah Stiglr.. You know, I know your all upset that you can not prove your point.. That and you just love the opportunity to say Targetware is a better simulator.. But we can do without the name calling? I really thought you were above that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
FOV has been moved in a bit...but you can still see much better from it than IL-2; sorta looks like that picture, though ASH_DUMB is to obstinate to admit it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Ah Stiglr.. what part of comparing a sim to a sim do you not understand? Is that your proof? Or just your weak attempt to try and sneak in another advertisement for Targerware? What did you buy stock in that game or something? And if it is so great.. Why did I see you here so much? And why do I see you in HL playing IL2 so much? Why are you not over playing Targetware all the time?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Also, TW 0.62 has added the ability to "lean" (although, where is one to put those extra buttons and switches),<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! The thing you once hated.. now you love.. Now I know why.. Because Targetware did it.. Cant hate what Targetware did! LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
the ability to remember view tweaks for each aircraft, and also a set of views you can toggle through for each plane, like a "instrument view" for the Zero, a throttle quadrant and trim view, a fuel console view, etc. for that same plane.
Crewable positions have started to appear, too... moving right along!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Such a great sim.. Yet you spend most of your time here or in HL playing IL2.. Something does not add up here? Unless your trying to improve your profits by pulling people away from IL2 to go play Targetware.. Hmmmm might be onto something there?

PS I personally think that Targetware cockpit look like crapola! So grainie.. so blockie.. if I didnt know better I would say that was a 320x320 rez shot?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

starfighter1
07-21-2004, 12:10 PM
hi,
ASH_SMART ...sorry.. You have to prove evidence Your theoretical phrases and not me and other which did that in the past by posting a lot of facts.../(see old links to this by research function to many forums of IL-2/FB since first demo of IL-2)

to the ZERO: soon I get new pics
+ original(copies) drawing from a well known expert of warbirds(and in 3D) in Japan with witch I'm in contact for long time.Also new for me. Because PF Addon is knocking at the door. Because I'm not a expert in ZERO at all.

But to regcognize the difference between virtual height of pilots view in this game( which is too low) and in real warbirds is so evident that only ignorants which are fishing for attention of their abstract phrases are sweeping statements of opposite.

On the other hand: maybe they don't know it at
all. Also with mixed half facts many arguments seems to be true.
Anyway : we assume ASH_SMART is not a demagogue

the half-life period of those phrases is very small as we remember to many contributions since beginning of this forum.

My base of information is the long experience and discussion with real warbirds experts veterans/pilots/own flights with in several historical warbirds and flight clubs since the last 30 years.

OK..hmm.. and of course who will care so much about... IL-2/FB is a pc-game and this points are not so important to real pilots.
Same of this german test pilots who is flying the stormbird Me 262 and some more I met in the past.
They crack jokes about all this funny pc-sims.

Nevertheless many young interest enthusiastic flight simers get a lot of stupid stuff, which is far away of real things.

A bit more self criticism of the developer/publisher (many others too) would face them more symphatic.

So, if there is a interest to the stuff arround 'virtual pilots view' 'necessarily fixes etc.. let's make a separately thread to discuss this and I'll will bring up a lot of information. But in case the developer,forum of Ubisoft, the users are not interest because the are sitting on theirs own rented truth ...OK.. I don't care...there are more interest forums in the real warbird restorung scene and at other sim forums...

nevertheless I like to game this pc-sim just for fun....and hope


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,Dnmy...same Problem of some over modelled struts in Me-108 E/F ...'Erla'..and normally the pilots can see the cowling ...

OK: too late to fix all designs in so many differents planes of the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fix? You say that as if you have proven they are broken? Which is not to say I think they are good as is.. Only that you have not provided anything to prove they are not correct.. I trust the 3D artiest spent more time looking at pictures and blueprint then you did.. That and anyone can play the word games you and yours have played.. The original poster said.. and I quote

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jieitai_Tsunami:
__So this lack of view takes away one of the main advantages of the Zero...__<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I am sure you can find some out of context link on some web sight that will say the same thing.. But one can also find the opposite statement.. and I quote

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>From http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avzero.html:__
The sliding canopy gave excellent all-round vision, though it featured a "greenhouse" style bracing structure that caused a degree of visual obstruction.__<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Note excellent *all around* yet *visual obstruction*

I personally think the current IL-2 ZERO has those qualities.. But who am I to say?

My point is simple.. I don't know if the zero cockpit is correct or not.. But I do know this.. you and yours have NOT presented anything to prove that is it incorrect!!

_ASH HOUSEWARES_ http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav__
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
ASH_SMART ...sorry.. You have to prove evidence Your theoretical phrases and not me and other which did that in the past by posting a lot of facts.../(see old links to this by research function to many forums of IL-2/FB since first demo of IL-2) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Me? Buddy.. GET A MIRROR!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
to the ZERO: soon I get new pics
+ original(copies) drawing from a well known expert of warbirds(and in 3D) in Japan with witch I'm in contact for long time.Also new for me. Because PF Addon is knocking at the door. Because I'm not a expert in ZERO at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree.. you are not an expert.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
But to regcognize the difference between virtual height of pilots view in this game( which is too low) and in real warbirds is so evident that only ignorants which are fishing for attention of their abstract phrases are sweeping statements of opposite.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now don't be too hard on yourself.. I don't think you are ignorant.. Just misguided! On the subject of the ZERO.. Now I know this is hard for you.. But give it a shot.. Are you saying the cockpit construction is wrong.. i.e. the bars are too thick.. Like you were saying a few pages back.. Or are you saying the head height is wrong?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
On the other hand: maybe they don't know it at all. Also with mixed half facts many arguments seems to be true.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not so much mixed half facts as much as someone miss interpret the facts and wanting to belive something so strongly that they are blind to any other possible explanation.. Those people are easy to spot because they talk in generality.. Never really stating just what it is they are saying.. That way when proving wrong they can side step it and say that is not what they were talking about.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Anyway : we assume ASH_SMART is not a demagogue<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No need to assume

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
the half-life period of those phrases is very small as we remember to many contributions since beginning of this forum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
My base of information is the long experience and discussion with real warbirds experts veterans/pilots/own flights with in several historical warbirds and flight clubs since the last 30 years.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Really? 30 years.. And you can not formulate a simple statement? That and in 30 years you don't have a clear cut example or explanation to back up your argument? Tell me this is your hobby and not your job?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
OK..hmm.. and of course who will care so much about... IL-2/FB is a pc-game and this points are not so important to real pilots.
Same of this german test pilots who is flying the stormbird Me 262 and some more I met in the past.
They crack jokes about all this funny pc-sims.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ill be they do.. Because they realize.. unlike some people here.. that PC's are limited in what they can do to represent a real world environment.. Note we have come full circle.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Nevertheless many young interest enthusiastic flight simers get a lot of stupid stuff, which is far away of real things.

A bit more self criticism of the developer/publisher (many others too) would face them more symphatic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, don't be too hard on yourself! It is easy to make a mistake.. it is hard for some to admit it. Thus they go on trying to prop up their mistakes by not addressing the questions put to them and just restating what they all ready said as if they say it 10,000 times more it will give it more credibility then saying it once

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
So, if there is a interest to the stuff arround 'virtual pilots view' 'necessarily fixes etc.. let's make a separately thread to discuss this and I'll will bring up a lot of information. But in case the developer,forum of Ubisoft, the users are not interest because the are sitting on theirs own rented truth ...OK.. I don't care...there are more interest forums in the real warbird restorung scene and at other sim forums...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sounds like someone just realized they were wrong and setting up their graceful exit?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
nevertheless I like to game this pc-sim just for fun....and hope<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Join the club!

By the way.. I noticed you had nothing to say about the following

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> From http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avzero.html :
The sliding canopy gave excellent all-round vision, though it featured a "greenhouse" style bracing structure that caused a degree of visual obstruction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it safe to assume that your lengthy rant above was in the hopes that I would not notice? nice try! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

starfighter1
07-21-2004, 03:48 PM
hi,
Come on ASH_SMART ....where is the beef?
it's Your turn show us all the figures and facts

I'l give the youth the chance first to show their expert knowledge..

You can trust me....
You will get all my posted stuff of the past to this and a bit more
by the way:did You searched all stuff to this in the different forums to this ...takes time I know.
Sometime some arguments came as 'Lucky Luke' ...
it's easier than to take time to study deeply at all...
OK, thx for Your response ...and good luck to Your research and study in this area....I'm looking forward to more links, hints and tips from You...something could be interest.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,

starfighter1
07-21-2004, 04:12 PM
hi,
ASH_SMART
pics like this show more than thousand words !

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/gallery/hurripilot1024.bmp

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 04:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
Come on ASH_SMART ....where is the beef?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Funny you should use that example.. In that is what I have been thinking of when reading your posts

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
it's Your turn show us all the figures and facts<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! My turn? You say that as if you allready took a turn and show some facts.. Well you did have a few weak attempts that I could explain away with a simple logicaly point of view.. But the ball is still in your cort.. Oh and just encase you forgot.. I am not saying anything is right or wrong.. Im only pointing out that your so called proof is not proof at all!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
I'l give the youth the chance first to show their expert knowledge..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now dont be so hard on yourself.. missguided.. missinformed.. but I wouldnt imply your efforts were youthful!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
You can trust me....
You will get all my posted stuff of the past to this and a bit more<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well.. dont be upset if I dont hold my breath.. In light of the fact that I can not even get you to simply state what it is your talking about let along and promise to post proof of.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
by the way:did You searched all stuff to this in the different forums to this ...takes time I know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, been there done that.. How did you think I shot down your examples so quickly and easily?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
Sometime some arguments came as 'Lucky Luke' ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And in your case 'Ducky Duck'

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
it's easier than to take time to study deeply at all...
[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
OK, thx for Your response ...and good luck to Your research and study in this area....I'm looking forward to more links, hints and tips from You...something could be interest.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good luck to you too.. because from what you have posted here you are goig to need it..

Hey.. Before you run off and hide.. Care to comment on this?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>From http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avzero.html :
The sliding canopy gave excellent all-round vision, though it featured a "greenhouse" style bracing structure that caused a degree of visual obstruction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bet you thought I forgot huh? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
ASH_SMART
pics like this show more than thousand words !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree..

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/gallery/hurripilot1024.bmp

In that it appears that the pilot is sitting low in the saddle with his eye inline with the gun sight... Just like IL2 simulates.. Oh wait.. I thought one of your arguments was the pilots sit too low (ie your gormish definition) so why would you post this? Oh.. wait.. maybe your trying to tell us the cockpit frames on the zero are too thick because the cockpit frames in this Hurr *seem* to be simular? Or is this your proof that the Fw190 forward view is wrong.. Or are you switching to the argument that the Brits used the thumbs up signal too? By the way.. Just what is it your are complaning about? Seems like everytime I prove you wrong you switch to a different topic... Why is that?

Oh.. by the way.. care to comment on this?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>From http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avzero.html :
The sliding canopy gave excellent all-round vision, though it featured a "greenhouse" style bracing structure that caused a degree of visual obstruction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ill bet you thought I forgot! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

starfighter1
07-21-2004, 04:53 PM
hi,
ASH_SMART..
as I told You... step by step ....
but that could be a new thread as 'the virtual pilots view in IL-2/FB and in real' or 'what kind of virtual view can we expect in BoB' some more ideas ..hey ASH_SMART please open such a new thread ..
it's Your turn ..You like the thematic like transparent features as I remember in some threads ...
OK light off in old Europe ..the cradle of modern civilization ..by to next time ..a lot of interest stuff in the pipeline...hope same from You...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
ASH_SMART
pics like this show more than thousand words !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree..

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/gallery/hurripilot1024.bmp

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
ASH_SMART..
as I told You... step by step ....
but that could be a new thread as 'the virtual pilots view in IL-2/FB and in real' or 'what kind of virtual view can we expect in BoB' some more ideas ..hey ASH_SMART please open such a new thread ..
it's Your turn ..You like the thematic like transparent features as I remember in some threads ...
OK light off in old Europe ..the cradle of modern civilization ..by to next time ..a lot of interest stuff in the pipeline...hope same from You... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In light of your consistant avoidance to the questions at hand I can only assume the following

YOU HAVE BEEN
http://gatekeeper.naphoria.com/imagahs/owned.gif
Enjoy your cradle sleep...

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2004, 05:34 PM
As for the "lean", ASH_, you'll notice I kind of asked out loud how people are actually going to USE it to any effect (besides creating the "sticky" adjustment to the basic views). You can't use it in combat on the fly: by the time you hunt for the "lean left and down" command, the bogie's long gone, and a simple bank would have cleared up your problem. As I've always said.

Also, my example was not comparing sim to sim. It was comparing that view with the REAL picture that shows the canopy braces were more in line with what TW has done than what IL-2 blocks up 40% of the screen with. But, then, you knew that and just tried to twist the conversation so that no progress can be made. I see that big, robotic right hand is still giving you quite the workout...

As for the artwork, well, to each his own. I like the "well used" Targetware look more than the "factory fresh" IL-2 look for one, and for two, I don't judge a sim by graphics EVER; if it's got good modeling, then I'm interested. That's one area TW has IL-2 cold on; of course, you would have to compare yourself to see that.

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 05:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
As for the "lean", ASH_, you'll notice I kind of asked out loud how people are actually going to USE it to any effect (besides creating the "sticky" adjustment to the basic views).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I also noticed how a few months back you were dead set agints it.. Now that Targetware has implimented it you are more *open* to the idea.. Enh.. What ever it takes to get you there.. As long as you get there?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
You can't use it in combat on the fly: by the time you hunt for the "lean left and down" command, the bogie's long gone, and a simple bank would have cleared up your problem. As I've always said.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not ture.. Unless you would expect us all to belive that the current Shift-F1 view (ie LEAN FORWARD/BACKWARD) in IL-2 is too much to handle during combat.. Which it is not. And as I have said in the past, you actually DONT NEED another key to ctrl it.. It COULD BE made to operate off of the current keys.. For example when you press the HAT key LEFT that same HAT press could be used to LEAN LEFT.. As one would typically do.. Dont belive me? Then take a look at the Targetware ZERO avi they have on thier web sight.. Note as the guy PANS to the left the POV LEANS left too... So now that Targetware is doing it maybe you will.. get there too?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Also, my example was not comparing sim to sim. It was comparing that view with the REAL picture that shows the canopy braces were more in line with what TW has done than what IL-2 blocks up 40% of the screen with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true in that you have yet to post a picture of a forward view from inside a ZERO cockpit.. And as for the 40% thing.. Where did that number come from? Bet you pulled it out of your A$$ like so many other things.. But if you didnt.. I would be interested in how you can up with it... But you and I both know you just pulled it from out of your A$$.. But.. It does look good to the person just glancing at the text.. Give is a real *feel* of you knowing what your talking about.. But you and I know better.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
But, then, you knew that and just tried to twist the conversation so that no progress can be made.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! NOW THAT IS A GOOD ONE!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I see that big, robotic right hand is still giving you quite the workout...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. Stiglr.. you know.. when a guy has to resort to 5th grad humor it is a true sign of him running out of steam.. If you want to get personal.. PM me.. then we can get personal!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
As for the artwork, well, to each his own. I like the "well used" Targetware look more than the "factory fresh" IL-2 look for one, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No.. I take it back THIS IS A GOOD ONE!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
and for two, I don't judge a sim by graphics EVER; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. you just did! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
if it's got good modeling, then I'm interested. That's one area TW has IL-2 cold on; of course, you would have to compare yourself to see that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Been there done that.. and Im still here.. But.. Why are you here? If Targetware is so much better?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 05:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
As for the "lean", ASH_, you'll notice I kind of asked out loud how people are actually going to USE it to any effect (besides creating the "sticky" adjustment to the basic views). You can't use it in combat on the fly: by the time you hunt for the "lean left and down" command, the bogie's long gone, and a simple bank would have cleared up your problem. As I've always said.

Also, my example was not comparing sim to sim. It was comparing that view with the REAL picture that shows the canopy braces were more in line with what TW has done than what IL-2 blocks up 40% of the screen with. But, then, you knew that and just tried to twist the conversation so that no progress can be made. I see that big, robotic right hand is still giving you quite the workout...

As for the artwork, well, to each his own. I like the "well used" Targetware look more than the "factory fresh" IL-2 look for one, and for two, I don't judge a sim by graphics EVER; if it's got good modeling, then I'm interested. That's one area TW has IL-2 cold on; of course, you would have to compare yourself to see that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>By the way.. I noticed that you had no comment on this

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>From http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avzero.html :
The sliding canopy gave excellent all-round vision, though it featured a "greenhouse" style bracing structure that caused a degree of visual obstruction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wonder why?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2004, 08:25 PM
A degree of obstruction...but then, that's what we're debating here, degrees. You think it's a large degree, many others think it's a bit smaller.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Unless you would expect us all to belive that the current Shift-F1 view (ie LEAN FORWARD/BACKWARD) in IL-2 is too much to handle during combat.. Which it is not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's also just ONE command. Leans up, down, left, right, diagonal, sideways and here and there are a LOT of commands to remember, let alone use in combat. Let alone configure to a joystick. While you're fumbling with all that, the bogies somewhere else anyway.

I was always of the view that LEANS were an ok idea in theory, but a HORRIBLE one in application. I'm never against anyone seeing better, so long as the view is physically possible. It's just that guys who want 50-eleven leans, hunches, neck tics and other commands are missing the obvious solution: just bank the damned plane, problem solved.

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
A degree of obstruction...but then, that's what we're debating here, degrees. You think it's a large degree, many others think it's a bit smaller.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually no.. you missed the point. The orginal post by Jieitai_Tsunami was in error.. when he said..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>and all seems to point to the real view from the pit to be better than, almost all US aircraft! Not just the 6 but sides too!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He assumed they were talking about the sides too.. The zero clearly has an excellent all-round vision much better then most razor back types of aircraft.. allmost as good as a bubble canopy.. But due to the "greenhouse" style of bracing it also clearly has visual obstructions as do all non-buble type canopys... And IL2 captures this feel exactally IMHO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
It's also just ONE command. Leans up, down, left, right, diagonal, sideways and here and there are a LOT of commands to remember, let alone use in combat. Let alone configure to a joystick. While you're fumbling with all that, the bogies somewhere else anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I just thank god that people like you are not programers! To take something so simple and make it so complex.. Amazing! You dont have to have lean in every conciable dirction.. A simple lean to the left when looking left would work as well as the current lean forwad does.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I was always of the view that LEANS were an ok idea in theory,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not ture.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
but a HORRIBLE one in application.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only because you have NEVER addressd the fact that it could simply be link to the currnet look left right keys/hat/mouse/TrakIr.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I'm never against anyone seeing better, so long as the view is physically possible. It's just that guys who want 50-eleven leans, hunches, neck tics and other commands<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Than your are only against yourself!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
are missing the obvious solution: just bank the damned plane, problem solved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not in all cases and banking bleeds energy.. For example say a bogie slips behind a cockpit bar obstruction.. And it was moving for Left to Right.. In antispation you banked to the right to not only follow but to regain sight of the bogie.. BUT while the bogie was obstructed it reversd and is not moving from Right to Left... And your heading to the Right.. Now you have to undo what you did to maintain sight and to follow.. Bleading twice the energy.. When in RL all you had to do was lean your head a little bit to the right... Tisk Tisk.. So basic.. How do you keep missing it?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-21-2004, 11:05 PM
Banking does NOT bleed energy, ya nimrod. If you're merely rolling about the center "Z" longitudinal axis of your plane you do NOT lose energy.

You lose energy if you combine it with elevator (e.g., turn or climb, or barrel roll and change the AoA drastically). Interestingly, if you do a very wide bank to inverted, you don't GAIN any E either, unless you allow the nose to dip and dive.

And, if I need to make a *small* tilt of a few degrees in my plane to keep an enemy in sight, rather than piss and moan about a canopy strut or the perceived loss of a few inconsequential kph, or worse, waste time and lose more Situational Awareness hunting for some arcane key to scrunch over for a peek... well I deserve to be floating home under silk.

BennyMoore
07-21-2004, 11:20 PM
The problem with is not the cockpit, but the views. If you could move your pilot's head up and down and backward and forward, then those struts would no longer seem so large. The problem is that the game forces you to be either hunched over staring into the gunsight, or slouched down in your seat in the comfortable position.

The pilot position in IL-2 is correct - if your pilot is slouching! In real life (and I know this from experience), if you want to see better, you sit up really straight in your seat, and all of a sudden you can see the cowling, as well as the ground off to either side a lot better.

In Jeff Ethell's Roaring Glory video on the P-38, you can see the P-38's entire nose, quite unlike in IL-2. Now, I'll admit that the camera was probably above the pilot's head, but you could still put your head there by lifting your posterior off of the seat. Can you bang your head on the top of the cockpit in your aircraft in real life? I can.

ASH at S-MART
07-22-2004, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Banking does NOT bleed energy, ya nimrod. If you're merely rolling about the center "Z" longitudinal axis of your plane you do NOT lose energy. You lose energy if you combine it with elevator (e.g., turn or climb, or barrel roll and change the AoA drastically). Interestingly, if you do a very wide bank to inverted, you don't GAIN any E either, unless you allow the nose to dip and dive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This statment clears up alot of your problems.. I have been giving you too much credit in the past Stiglr.. Your clearly ignorant about energy.. energy is potential to do work.. alt is energy, you can convert it to speed by diving.. You can also convert speed back into energy by climbing back up.. Deflecting any control surface creates drag and thus bleads speed.. Less speed means you have less to convert back to potential energy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And, if I need to make a *small* tilt of a few degrees in my plane to keep an enemy in sight, rather than piss and moan about a canopy strut or the _perceived_ loss of a few inconsequential kph, or worse, waste time and lose more Situational Awareness hunting for some arcane key to scrunch over for a peek... well I deserve to be floating home under silk.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So what part of linking it to a current key do you not understand?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-22-2004, 12:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
The problem with is not the cockpit, but the views. If you could move your pilot's head up and down and backward and forward, then those struts would no longer seem so large. The problem is that the game forces you to be either hunched over staring into the gunsight, or slouched down in your seat in the comfortable position.

The pilot position in IL-2 is correct - if your pilot is slouching! In real life (and I know this from experience), if you want to see better, you sit up really straight in your seat, and all of a sudden you can see the cowling, as well as the ground off to either side a lot better.

In Jeff Ethell's Roaring Glory video on the P-38, you can see the P-38's entire nose, quite unlike in IL-2. Now, I'll admit that the camera was probably above the pilot's head, but you could still put your head there by lifting your posterior off of the seat. Can you bang your head on the top of the cockpit in your aircraft in real life? I can.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree.. when looking around one would more than likly sit up as straight as posiable.. That is easier to do in some WWII aircraft.. not all.. The 109 and Spit were very tight.. Wherease the P47 and P51 were pretty roomie in comparsion.. But in light of the fact that the sim knows we are going to ultimly shoot.. Sim makers put our simulated eye level at the gun firing position.. IL-2 kind of addresses this with the Shift-F1 key.. In some ac it does not change the level much though.. But in the Me262 it does.. Thus simulating the "sitting up straight looking around" view instead of the "eyes at gunsight level"... There are several ways to address these limitations..

1) make the cockpit bars semi-transparent.. In that you would kill two birds with one stone.. You would be simulating how your two eyes and how they would make them seem transparent and it would also address the inability to lean.

2) make the simulated head lean in the directions you look.. That is to say when looking forward the eye level would be at the gunsight level.. when you look left (via hat, key, mouse or TrackIR) simply make the head (ie POV) move left too.. Thus simulating the head/neck/body lean to the left.. And it wouldnt hurt to make the head move up a bit too.. In that is what you would probally do 99% of the time anyways.

Problem with leaning is it does require more art work for the 3D cockpits... Where as the semi-trans wouldnt.

Those are the only two I can think off.. Im sure that in the near future we will see better view systems that take things like this into account.. But for now all we have is ONE CHOICE of eye level.. And it is set at the gunsight level.. In that is where it need to be when we shoot.. That and in alot of WWII aircraft they didnt have much of a choice to move around much.. Someone here even said that they talked to a Fw190 pilot who claimed that he didnt have to lean down to look through the gunsight.. ie his eye level was allways there.. I found that hard to belive in light of the Fw190 cockpit looking pretty roomie.

Anyway.. most of what we had to deal with today is dictated by the limitaions of the PC itself.. As time goes by with better vid cards we will see better view systems in taht they will be able to do more!!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

starfighter1
07-22-2004, 02:30 AM
hi,
test this tool(3D-Analyze v.2.34) together with running the game in wireframe modus....
and make a decision of struts, bar design and height of pilots view(camera view system)
(hope to find the old film files soon)

http://www.tommti-systems.de/start.html


posted long time ago to the discussion of view in FW-190 and background of cockpitdesign and struts construction

BennyMoore
07-22-2004, 02:51 AM
It doesn't really matter if a cockpit is large or not, the ceiling is still the limit. As long as your head isn't hitting the ceiling, you can always push yourself up for a better view. Even the smallest of cockpits would allow you to bring your head up high enough to get a very good look.

Looking into the gunsight by default doesn't mean that you can't look over it by pushing yourself up in your seat, or even just by sitting up straight.

starfighter1
07-22-2004, 05:07 AM
hi,
hmm... right at taxi and normal flight..
but did You ever flight on G-Power in combatfight or aero acrobatic?
I guess no... as many here arround...



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
It doesn't really matter if a cockpit is large or not, the ceiling is still the limit. As long as your head isn't hitting the ceiling, you can always push yourself up for a better view. Even the smallest of cockpits would allow you to bring your head up high enough to get a very good look.

Looking into the gunsight by default doesn't mean that you can't look over it by pushing yourself up in your seat, or even just by sitting up straight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg_Maddox
07-22-2004, 05:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Recon:
welcome to FB - check out the 190 while your at it

Salute!

S!
7thFS_Recon, CO
7th Fighter Squadron
http://7thfs.forgottenskies.com


http://www.forgottenskies.com/ScreaminDemons.gif
http://www.forgottenskies.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the guy that started topic is right, burt you - not.

I will see if it only possible to correct

starfighter1
07-22-2004, 08:08 AM
hi,
I admire this jap. designers..very accurate..
just have a look:
http://www2.cc22.ne.jp/~harada/english/zero_index_e.html

http://www2.cc22.ne.jp/~harada/Zero_21.jpg


http://www2.cc22.ne.jp/~harada/D_9.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-22-2004, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
It doesn't really matter if a cockpit is large or not, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Define large

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
the ceiling is still the limit. As long as your head isn't hitting the ceiling,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As long.. Which is not true for all aircraft.. The Spit and 109 had very small (ie up, down, and left and right) cockpits.. Thus even if you wanted to you couldnt move up very far.. RELITIVE to other aircraft mind you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
you can always push yourself up for a better view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Depends.. Under g it is not easy to do.. In light of the fact that most manuvers include some pitch up.. then most manuvers include some g pushing you down into your seat.. Left and Right and Duck types of leans would be posiable (easier) in the same situtaions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Even the smallest of cockpits would allow you to bring your head up high enough to get a very good look.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmm well we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Looking into the gunsight by default doesn't mean that you can't look over it by pushing yourself up in your seat, or even just by sitting up straight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Take note here.. I never said it did! I simply pointed out the FACTS about the LIMITATIONS of the current sim vs. reality.. Once again.. The sim has our eyes at a fixed height.. That height is at the gun sight level (except for a few special case ac like the Me262) so we can look through it and shoot.. THAT SIMPLE FACT is what makes doing OTHER things hard.. Like LANDIG ON AN AIR CRAFT CARRIER or TAXINING on the run way and running into the ac in front of you because you could not see it.. etc. And just to be painfully clear.. In light of the LIMITATIONS the sim makers CHOOSE to put our eyes at gun level because if they didnt we would not be able to SHOOT very well.. Sure.. We could TAXI better and LAND better.. But this is not MS Flight sim.. This is a COMBAT FLIGHT sim

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

starfighter1
07-22-2004, 10:56 AM
hi,
some more jap. high class design + videos
about ZERO and more....

http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/%7Ejime/

http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/%7Ejime/link.htm

crazyivan1970
07-22-2004, 11:06 AM
Guys, please NOTE Olegs responce above... and get a room http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, 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.

Jieitai_Tsunami
07-22-2004, 03:18 PM
Thanks for your reply Mr Maddox,

I hope you take what I said into consideration, for when Pacific fighters is released to make it a truly fantastic and historically accurate game http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. And for all us Zeke fans of course http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif.

crazyivan1970
07-22-2004, 03:41 PM
Tsunami, you should thank those 3 Amigoes too for making 11 pages out of it and keeping it up top, so Oleg could see it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, 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.

ASH at S-MART
07-22-2004, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Tsunami, you should thank those 3 Amigoes too for making 11 pages out of it and keeping it up top, so Oleg could see it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actully I think the 3 stooges would be a better fit.. Where I play moe, starfighter1 is Larry and Stglr is my Shemp! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

BennyMoore
07-23-2004, 12:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
Emmm well we will just have to agree to disagree on that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's your choice, of course, but have you ever been in a small aircraft in real life?

Even a foot of head room will make a staggeringly huge difference in your view. Even six inches will.

As I've said here before, when I flew a Cessna, I was only fifteen. I had to sit on a pillow to see out well. Before I introduced the pillow to my buttocks and the Cessna seat, I saw pretty much what we see in IL-2 (which is not much). Once I got the pillow, I saw ever so much better - far, far better than when sitting in the plane with the best view in IL-2.

The Cessna one fifty two does not have that much headroom. But I didn't need to sit up so far that my head hit the ceiling. As long as you're not slouching, or short, or eyeballing the gunsight view, you should be able to see much, much better out the front, to the sides, and even below you to some extent.

What IL-2 should have done was make one camera with coordinates to simulate the pilot sitting up straight, and one to simulate him sitting at eye level with the gunsight. Right now we have one with the pilot at eye level with the gunsight, and another with the pilot at eye level with the gunsight.

starfighter1
07-23-2004, 01:43 AM
hi,
that's the points...BennyMoore
it's really not easy to discuss this all with people who have sit in different plane cockpits only few times and with no flight experiences in different birds.

More stuff as old blueprints,pics,rebuilder experiences of warbirds and feed backs with pilots are usefull.

(sometimes also some sim developers got not always the original or wrong material as base to design/same to museums/takes a lot of time to study all this historical stuff 'Rome was not build in one day' )

Anyway: we hope to expect more features compare to real views (as possible... transport to pc-desktops) with a new game engine in BoB.







<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
Emmm well we will just have to agree to disagree on that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's your choice, of course, but have you ever been in a small aircraft in real life?

starfighter1
07-23-2004, 01:50 AM
hi,
ASH_SMART ...
may I ask You seriously ..how old are You ?

BennyMoore
07-23-2004, 01:53 AM
I fear I did not get something across. I do not doubt that the cockpits are modelled to real specifications and are accurate. The reason the struts seem enormous is because of the pilot's head position.

starfighter1
07-23-2004, 02:24 AM
hi,
indeed...iT's more complex than some youngsters think about.
I guess Crazyivan_1970 is right ...
let's stop here...
or if someone has good original and historical stuff he can send this to Maddox team to have a look to that...
nevertheless there are more thematics to start another thread or to continnue this points above to substantiate at other planes ...
so long ..by



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
I fear I did not get something across. I do not doubt that the cockpits are modelled to real specifications and are accurate. The reason the struts seem enormous is because of the pilot's head position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

starfighter1
07-23-2004, 02:52 AM
hi,
at last a link to more stuff in Europe:

http://www.warbirdsrestoration.com/

ASH at S-MART
07-23-2004, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
That's your choice, of course, but have you ever been in a small aircraft in real life?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, quite a few small ones.. Even a cool old open cockpit bi-plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Even a foot of head room will make a staggeringly huge difference in your view. Even six inches will.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree a little goes a long way.. But take a look at some of those Spitfire and 109 pictures with the pilots seated and the canopy closed.. They would have killed for 6" of head room on top! But just to be very clear here.. I agree that moving your head (i.e. LEAN) would improve your ability to see more of the nose, or wing, or etc.. IN REAL LIFE! But in the SIMULATION we *CURRENTLY* don't have a way to move our heads (LEAN) except for the Shift-F1 LEAN.. Which in the Me262 does EXACTLY what your talking about.. SIT UP AND LOOK AROUND.. But NOTE at THAT POINT you are NO LONGER looking THROUGH the gun sight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
As I've said here before, when I flew a Cessna, I was only fifteen. I had to sit on a pillow to see out well. Before I introduced the pillow to my buttocks and the Cessna seat, I saw pretty much what we see in IL-2 (which is not much). Once I got the pillow, I saw ever so much better - far, far better than when sitting in the plane with the best view in IL-2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As I'm SURE you did.. But now define BETTER! You could see the NOSE of the aircraft BET ER.. The tops of the WINGS better... More of the surrounding EARTH better.. But had there been a GUN SIGHT in that Cessan you would NO LONGER be looking through it! Thus making it harder to shoot.. And in light of the FACT that this simulation is about a WWII fighter with guns on it.. Well the SIM's definition of BETTER is looking through the gun sight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
The Cessna one fifty two does not have that much headroom.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Relative to what?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
But _I didn't need to sit up so far that my head hit the ceiling._ As long as you're not slouching, or short, or eyeballing the gun sight view, you should be able to see much, much better out the front, to the sides, and even below you to some extent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree.. In real life where you can LEAN you can get a better view of the NOSE, WINGS, SIX, sourounding COUNTRY SIDE, etc.. But in the sim DUE TO THE CURRENT LIMITATIONS we are lock into the gun sight level.. Which for the most part is where most of your time is spent in the simulation.. That and a lot or WWII aircraft were so cramped you didnt have much choice.. So I think the sim makers did the smart thing by picking the head height to be at the height where you simulated eyes are inline with the gun sight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
What IL-2 should have done was make one camera with coordinates to simulate the pilot sitting up straight, and one to simulate him sitting at eye level with the gun sight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree!! And that is what they did on the Me262.. They should do that for the Me109 and Fw190 too!! But instead they did a LEAN left.. Which is worthless really! It puts your eye at the SAME GUN SIGHT LEVEL but moved LEFT to CENTER your view instead of offset to the RIGHT to look through the offset gun sight. Had they done that there would be a lot less whinning about the current forward Fw190 view.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Right now we have one with the pilot at eye level with the gun sight, and another with the pilot at eye level with the gun sight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>For most.. but not the Me262.. And a few more.. But for the most part the Shift-F1 is pretty unfair IMHO.. On some it simulates a BIG LEAN and on others it is so small you don't even notice it.. Like the Fw190 and Me109.. They got a pretty raw deal IMHO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
I fear I did not get something across. I do not doubt that the cockpits are modelled to real specifications and are accurate. The reason the struts seem enormous is because of the pilot's head position<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I totally agree with you on that! Take a small thing and bring it in close and it will look big!! Which explains why some of the cockpit bars look so big.. The small size of the cockpit forces them to be IN YOUR FACE! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But at the same time they would not appear to be solid.. But you would still sense the size of them.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-23-2004, 09:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
ASH_SMART ...
may I ask You seriously ..how old are You ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
and
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
indeed...iT's more complex than some youngsters think about.
I guess Crazyivan_1970 is right ...
let's stop here...
or if someone has good original and historical stuff he can send this to Maddox team to have a look to that...
nevertheless there are more thematics to start another thread or to continnue this points above to substantiate at other planes ...
so long ..by<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thus..

http://www.twisted-monkey.com/owned.jpg

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

BennyMoore
07-23-2004, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
But had there been a GUN SIGHT in that Cessan you would NO LONGER be looking through it! Thus making it harder to shoot.. And in light of the FACT that this simulation is about a WWII fighter with guns on it.. Well the SIM's definition of BETTER is looking through the gun sight.

So I think the sim makers did the smart thing by picking the head height to be at the height where you simulated eyes are inline with the gun sight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ash, the gunsight view should be like that. The default view should be higher. You yourself said this in your next paragraph. I'm confused.

ASH at S-MART
07-23-2004, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Ash, the _gunsight_ view should be like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is what I have been saying from the get go

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
The default view should be higher. You yourself said this in your next paragraph.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In real life yes.. But in sim life it IS NOT! Not because it is real but because the sim does not know when you are looking to shoot or just looking.. Hence my call for a few changes in the next gen of sims.. semi-trans and the ability to lean

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
I'm confused.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Because your statments are a mix of the real world and simulated world.. Break them apart and it will be more clear.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

starfighter1
07-24-2004, 01:22 AM
hi,
real story...enjoy it...+ nice song..
'don't fly to high my little friend'
first steps of flight by ASH_SMART&Crew:

http://www.redbullflugtag.de/

http://www.redbullflugtag.at/galerie/

[This message was edited by starfighter1 on Sat July 24 2004 at 12:34 AM.]

ASH at S-MART
07-24-2004, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
real story...enjoy it...+ nice song..
'don't fly to high my little friend'
first steps of flight by ASH_SMART&Crew:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
hi,
real picture..enjoy it...+ nice whine..
'don't let go of the hood of my car little friend'
first driving less for starfighter1 by ASH_SMART&Crew:

Y O U H A V E B E E N
http://www.t.halobrigade.com/pictures/owned!!!111!.jpg

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

VF103_Moo
07-24-2004, 02:04 PM
chill out dude, its a...G A M E...

starfighter1
07-24-2004, 02:27 PM
hi,
ASH_SMART
thanks... I have a lot of humor...hope You and Your crew too.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

and here a link to oversea base lesson of physics: http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=822100365


hope that's not Your crew... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
real story...enjoy it...+ nice song..
'don't fly to high my little friend'
first steps of flight by ASH_SMART&Crew:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
hi,
real picture..enjoy it...+ nice whine..
'don't let go of the hood of my car little friend'
first driving less for starfighter1 by ASH_SMART&Crew:

_Y O U H A V E B E E N_