III/JG2Gustav05 Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) Hi Guys, I know maybe some people here would say this is not important. but I would like to say that I can feel something wrong each time I look at the Bf109G2 external view. picture is a worth a thousand words. the black/blue lines are real 109's blueprint comparing with the screen shot in BOS. Edited June 3, 2015 by III/JG2Gustav05 1
Original_Uwe Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 If you change the 3d model it will change the view from inside. See the FW 190 bar debate. Can you show that the view from the cockpit is incorrect?
I./JG1_Baron Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 I think that BF-109G-2 look is ok. Inside - outside. 1
LLv24_Zami Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 I think that BF-109G-2 look is ok. Inside - outside. +1. Visibility is bad enough even now from G2 cockpit
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Do the 2 last pics show an edited ingame cockpit? Otherwise I can't see much of a point aside of the front-side window being a little too wide.
III/JG2Gustav05 Posted June 3, 2015 Author Posted June 3, 2015 From inside I think currently is OK but the front glass window looks a little bit smaller than the real one, because there is no light deflection simulated. from outside I think currently it looks not like Gustav but a hybrid of Fritz and Gustav. I know you guys concern about the view from inside if we wider the frame. but I think it can be solved by define some 3d polygons can only be seen from outside.
Feathered_IV Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 The quarterlights might be a bit deep but the rest seems fairly close.
Original_Uwe Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 From inside I think currently is OK but the front glass window looks a little bit smaller than the real one, because there is no light deflection simulated. from outside I think currently it looks not like Gustav but a hybrid of Fritz and Gustav. I know you guys concern about the view from inside if we wider the frame. but I think it can be solved by define some 3d polygons can only be seen from outside. We have been down this road with the 190. They cannot or will not make the frame thicker on the outside without affecting the visibility. I think its fine the way it is.
III/JG2Gustav05 Posted June 3, 2015 Author Posted June 3, 2015 still don't think its obvious? how about this one? 50% width difference on some place. 1
Gunsmith86 Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Its simple to unimportant if we go after each small failure we find we will never see another new plane! 2
Feathered_IV Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 still don't think its obvious? how about this one? 50% width difference on some place. Isn't that G model a later version with the presurised cockpit and thickened canopy?
SCG_Space_Ghost Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Its simple to unimportant if we go after each small failure we find we will never see another new plane! That's fine. Maybe we should work on making the planes we do have right before we move on to making more. Quality>Quantity 1
BraveSirRobin Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 That's fine. Maybe we should work on making the planes we do have right before we move on to making more. Quality>Quantity I'll take new planes over the correct number of rivets in existing planes any day. 1
elephant Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Isn't that G model a later version with the presurised cockpit and thickened canopy? Yes, it's a G-6, but the windshield and canopy should be the identical with the G-2 one... BTW, indication of a pressurised cabin is the lack of those intakes on the sides of the windshield... Bf 109 G-1 of Heinz Knoke
III/JG2Gustav05 Posted June 3, 2015 Author Posted June 3, 2015 Isn't that G model a later version with the presurised cockpit and thickened canopy? I don't think so, As I know the front part a canopy never has major change from G1 to G10, and the rear part just change from the one we currently have to Erla version in terms of the frame structure.
III/JG2Gustav05 Posted June 3, 2015 Author Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) That's fine. Maybe we should work on making the planes we do have right before we move on to making more. Quality>Quantity +1, For German side we only have 2 main fighter series, the 3D model between F4 and G2 has only few parts different. Could we model those small different parts a little bit more accurately? As a Gustav fan I can not help thinking this canopy model issue. I am willing to pay 10 bucks to get this fixed Edited June 3, 2015 by III/JG2Gustav05
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) Again I can only see the width of the "A" windows to be wrong. Of course this, if shortened, would effect the geometry of all other canopy surfaces but I really can't tell which one is wrong. And pls no random "blueprints" and portfolios for comparison reasons, those have been drawn by individuals and can be just as faulty as the game model might be. Even pictures of modern flying Bf 109s might be discredited if they use rebuild canopies, which might not represent wartime ones exactly. Edited June 3, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka 1
III/JG2Gustav05 Posted June 3, 2015 Author Posted June 3, 2015 Again I can only see the width of the "A" windows to be wrong. Of course this, if shortened, would effect the geometry of all other canopy surfaces but I really can't tell which one is wrong. And pls no random "blueprints" and portfolios for comparison reasons, those have been drawn by individuals and can be just as faulty as the game model might be. Even pictures of modern flying Bf 109s might be discredited if they use rebuild canopies, which might not represent wartime ones exactly. The width of A window is wrong because of the frame is too narrow. as for the canopy I think the upper frame is too wide and the lower frame is too narrow. all war time pictures support this comment. I use this modern flying BF109 picture just because I cannot find other picture with better quality.
Original_Uwe Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) [Edited]The only possible reason you could come up with such trivial, mind numbing minutia is of you have an actual goal of slowing/stopping development.THIS IS ASININE.Edit: I mean there is plenty to get legitimately hung up on. Incorrect aircraft performance, tracer colors, magic Yaks, worst SP campaign of any CFS ever, dunderhead position towards mods, etc etc but this is grasping at straws.Remember from the FW incident if they change the external 3d they change the view from cockpit. That is more important than exterior apperance. Edited June 5, 2015 by Bearcat 4
1CGS LukeFF Posted June 3, 2015 1CGS Posted June 3, 2015 These have to be about the absolute worst comparison images I have ever seen. 2
III/JG2Gustav05 Posted June 3, 2015 Author Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) Such obvious difference you could see only means something wrong with you. I speak out the truth because this is the right thing to do. Edited June 3, 2015 by III/JG2Gustav05
Gunsmith86 Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 If this is so important for you than you should report the bug you found here were it should be.
III/JG2Gustav05 Posted June 3, 2015 Author Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) [Edited] The only possible reason you could come up with such trivial, mind numbing minutia is of you have an actual goal of slowing/stopping development. THIS IS ASININE. Edit: I mean there is plenty to get legitimately hung up on. Incorrect aircraft performance, tracer colors, magic Yaks, worst SP campaign of any CFS ever, dunderhead position towards mods, etc etc but this is grasping at straws. Remember from the FW incident if they change the external 3d they change the view from cockpit. That is more important than exterior apperance. Who said it must be fixed right now? I hope development team will take a look on that in the future if view from cockpit is not impacted. besides as I said before the upper frame of the canopy should be narrower than we have now. change of this for sure will improve the view from cockpit. Edited June 5, 2015 by Bearcat
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 OK, I'm trying to get this straight to understand what changes you mean exactly (I'm not arguing against you). I took your G-6 - G-2 comparison picture (just for visualisation) and gave it a go. I made the first and middle vertical brace thicker + increased the bottom frame thickness. All based purely on the Bf-109 G-6 picture and not nessecarily accurate. Is this closer to what you intend it to be changed to?
SCG_Space_Ghost Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 -snip- Could we model those small different parts a little bit more accurately? -snip- The lack thereof is precisely why I haven't invested in their product any further than the initial EA.
III/JG2Gustav05 Posted June 3, 2015 Author Posted June 3, 2015 OK, I'm trying to get this straight to understand what changes you mean exactly (I'm not arguing against you). I took your G-6 - G-2 comparison picture (just for visualisation) and gave it a go. I made the first and middle vertical brace thicker + increased the bottom frame thickness. All based purely on the Bf-109 G-6 picture and not nessecarily accurate. Is this closer to what you intend it to be changed to? yes 5tuka, thank you for the drawing. I think it's a good step forward comparing current model we have if ignoring the accuracy of your drawing. I think in your drawing the middle brace is too thick, upper frame width need to be decreased, the front frame of A window also need to be widen a little bit. But at least just change the bottom frame thickness only can make it more looks like the real one at the first glance.
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 River counters rejoice, your hero has arrived to lead you in battle! 3
BraveSirRobin Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 River counters rejoice, your hero has arrived to lead you in battle! He may be their leader, but he is not their King. There was someone on the CoD banana forum who went absolutely ballistic because he thought a porthole on one of the ships was misplaced. That man is the King of the Rivet Counters.
Potenz Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) He may be their leader, but he is not their King. There was someone on the CoD banana forum who went absolutely ballistic because he thought a porthole on one of the ships was misplaced. That man is the King of the Rivet Counters. rivet counters are amazing, i just can imagine them, hours in front of the computer with a whole library slowly rotating the plane and eagerly trying to find something out of place [Edited] Edited June 5, 2015 by Bearcat 1
FlyingNutcase Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Why the put-downs? We all have different things that spark our interest here; some people don't care about ammo loadouts, for others it's everything; same with historically perfect skins, loadouts, missions etc etc. We're probably all rivet counters in our own ways. My 2c in the slot.
BraveSirRobin Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Why the put-downs? Because freaking out over a misplaced porthole is absurd. As great as these games are, there are so many things that are constant reminders that you're playing a game and not flying a real WW2 fighter. Things that are much more obvious than a strut is a few cm too wide or a porthole might be misplaced by a few feet. And the priorities of people who freak out over stuff like that are seriously F'd up. 3
FlyingNutcase Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Because freaking out over a misplaced porthole is absurd. As great as these games are, there are so many things that are constant reminders that you're playing a game and not flying a real WW2 fighter. Things that are much more obvious than a strut is a few cm too wide or a porthole might be misplaced by a few feet. And the priorities of people who freak out over stuff like that are seriously F'd up. Freaking out? Or mentioning an inaccuracy after an objective analysis? Is there not something that you care enthusiastically about which simmer Joe couldn't care less about?
III/JG2Gustav05 Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 I think to be real simmer you cannot prevent yourself from caring about such details like this. some guy would say there have plenty of more important things we need to take care of, for example the FM. but the problem is that is the development team gonna change the FM as what you indicated already? at least I cannot see such clue. If thing is like that why we can not start with changing the things like the 3D model issue? Why you are so obsessive to stop other peoples to something just because you are not caring about it? 1
III/JG2Gustav05 Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) rivet counters are amazing, i just can imagine them, hours in front of the computer with a whole library slowly rotating the plane and eagerly trying to find something out of place to inflate their egos I am deeply sorry for hurting you here by crushing your egos. Edited June 4, 2015 by III/JG2Gustav05
Finkeren Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I don't get, while you are all being so hard on the OP. He just pointed out an interesting flaw and we're having a nerdy discussion about it. Nowhere did he demand, that the devs drop their schedule to fix this. It's obviously an extremly minor error, that could be fixed along the way, if some on the team found the time for it, or not at all, and BoS would be just as good for it. Let's just have a friendly discussion about this. Non-rivet counters need not attend. 1
Finkeren Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Isn't that G model a later version with the presurised cockpit and thickened canopy? The redesigned canopy introduced on the Gustav was always meant to be pressurised. The odd model numbers (1,3,5 etc.) were reserved for the high altitude pressurised versions, which is why the more well known G models are all even-numbered. In reality only relative small numbers of G1s, G3s and G5s (the latter in somewhat higher numbers) were built (apart from pressurisation they were identical to the more common G2, G4 and G6) and none were made after 1943. The easiest way to distiguish a pressurised Gustaf from a non-pressurised one is by the small intake on the side just below the front end of the canopy (where there used to be a triangular window on the earlier canopy) This intake is there only on the non-pressurised versions and absent on the G1, G3 and G5. EDIT: Oh, one more thing: The G1 was also made in a lightened version with less armour, no rustsätze fittings and GM-1 nitrous oxide boost. There were also a few G5/AS made. Very few pressurised 109s carried any rustsätze beyond the R1/R2 drop tank. Edited June 4, 2015 by Finkeren
FlyingNutcase Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 The redesigned canopy introduced on the Gustav was always meant to be pressurised. The odd model numbers (1,3,5 etc.) were reserved for the high altitude pressurised versions, which is why the more well known G models are all even-numbered. In reality only relative small numbers of G1s, G3s and G5s (the latter in somewhat higher numbers) were built (apart from pressurisation they were identical to the more common G2, G4 and G6) and none were made after 1943. The easiest way to distiguish a pressurised Gustaf from a non-pressurised one is by the small intake on the side just below the front end of the canopy (where there used to be a triangular window on the earlier canopy) This intake is there only on the non-pressurised versions and absent on the G1, G3 and G5. bf 109.jpg EDIT: Oh, one more thing: The G1 was also made in a lightened version with less armour, no rustsätze fittings and GM-1 nitrous oxide boost. There were also a few G5/AS made. Very few pressurised 109s carried any rustsätze beyond the R1/R2 drop tank. How the hell do you know all that, lol.
Recommended Posts