FW-190 how far have we come?

[IbisWTE_Ibis]

      Hi guys, I noticed something similar in the FW190 video to

a track that I made of the A3 when it became available in IL2.

 

           Sorry about the resolution but it was made four or five years ago and wasn’t meant to be a video.

I found it on my old hard drive and uploaded it to youtube.

there are some little hiccups due to the 4GB copy limitation but it gives you an idea of how far we have come.

I hope you enjoy some nostalgia.

 

cheers,

  Ibis

 

 

new:      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QooPjDsu4Bg

 

 

old:        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt-r28KSd-o

[Lippisch]

The most obvious difference is the flight-models and ground handling - it's pretty sad that after so long, CoD was using the same interpolated flight and hard-body damage modelling as the original IL-2. For that alone am I glad that we have BoS! The foundation is set for what combat flight simulation should be, and it's only going to get better as the new titles draw a wider player base. 

[Art]

Is it climb rate correct? I mean http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/17539-fw-190a-3-climb-rate/

[LukeFF]

You know, there is a flight model subforum here...

[Brano]

I see the difference of at least one generation.King is dead,long live the king 

[kiershar]

There was changes recently? I can't seem to find it in the changelogs.

Edited December 14, 2015 by kiershar

[LukeFF]

There was changes recently? I can't seem to find it in the changelogs.

 

No, it's not been changed recently.

[KoN_]

The most obvious difference is the flight-models and ground handling - it's pretty sad that after so long, CoD was using the same interpolated flight and hard-body damage modelling as the original IL-2. For that alone am I glad that we have BoS! The foundation is set for what combat flight simulation should be, and it's only going to get better as the new titles draw a wider player base. 

Please , ? why you think its better . i am confused . Are we talking impact area or visuals . ?  

[GP*]

The 190 is a pleasure to fly IMO. The only thing I've always wondered is the view with respect to the canopy framing. I know they narrowed the front framing elements early on in EA, but the portion where the sliding canopy meets the front windscreen is just so dang big. 

 

I'm not trying to claim it's wrong, because I seriously don't know. Does anyone have any knowledge on this? 

[Wulf]

The 190 is a pleasure to fly IMO. The only thing I've always wondered is the view with respect to the canopy framing. I know they narrowed the front framing elements early on in EA, but the portion where the sliding canopy meets the front windscreen is just so dang big. 

 

I'm not trying to claim it's wrong, because I seriously don't know. Does anyone have any knowledge on this? 

 

Cockpit framing issues have already been declared non-existent by the Ministry of Truth.

[LukeFF]

Cockpit framing issues have already been declared non-existent by the Ministry of Truth.

 

Let's keep this from exploding into a flamewar.

Edited December 18, 2015 by LukeFF

[Bearcat]

Yes let's... Please keep that kind of rhetoric from these discussions..

....the Ministry of Truth.

[Lippisch]

Please , ? why you think its better . i am confused . Are we talking impact area or visuals . ?  

 

Everything is better. It's a matter of facts, not so much opinion. 

[Crump]

      Hi guys, I noticed something similar in the FW190 video to

a track that I made of the A3 when it became available in IL2.

 

           Sorry about the resolution but it was made four or five years ago and wasn’t meant to be a video.

I found it on my old hard drive and uploaded it to youtube.

there are some little hiccups due to the 4GB copy limitation but it gives you an idea of how far we have come.

I hope you enjoy some nostalgia.

 

cheers,

  Ibis

 

 

new:      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QooPjDsu4Bg

 

 

old:        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt-r28KSd-o

 

 

With 100Kg of fuel??

 

That is about 31 gallons of C3 fuel.  About enough to safely taxi to the end of the runway in an FW-190A3.  In otherwords, you can put on a nice aerobatic display in the real aircraft on your way to the crashsite.

 

The BMW801D2 uses ~127 gallons per hour at 1.2 ata @ 2300U/min.  31 gallons of fuel  means 14 minutes of fuel IF you are already in the air.......

Edited December 21, 2015 by Crump

[IbisWTE_Ibis]

There is no doubt that the current game is superior in being closer to a simulator and without doubt the graphics are superior, as they should be.

  I don't want to cause any friction but I just wondered who here, if anyone, thinks as I do that I had more fun with the modded IL2. While I appreciate

the accuracy is it possible to be too accurate to be easily flown and for missions to be easily made to attract the most sim flyers ? 

 

 Before everyone starts screaming "heretic" and coming after me with pitch forks,   I may be the only one, but I wondered if anyone else had a similar feeling ?

   thanks

   Ibis.

 

don't mention WT

[F/JG300_Gruber]

The 190 is a pleasure to fly IMO. The only thing I've always wondered is the view with respect to the canopy framing. I know they narrowed the front framing elements early on in EA, but the portion where the sliding canopy meets the front windscreen is just so dang big. 

 

I'm not trying to claim it's wrong, because I seriously don't know. Does anyone have any knowledge on this? 

 

 

Try to move the pilot head backward and then save a quickview of the new head position. When the position of the camera in the cockpit is where it should be (as when the pilot's head is resting on the headrest), the framing is not an issue anymore. The default view is way too close of the instrument panel. 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2015 by F/JG300_Gruber

[GP*]

 

 

Try to move the pilot head backward and then save a quickview of the new head position. When the position of the camera in the cockpit is where it should be (as when the pilot's head is resting on the headrest), the framing is not an issue anymore. The default view is way too close of the instrument panel. 

 

 

 

 

Nicely done! Based on the amount of wing visible in the field of view, it does seem just a touch far back, but the cockpit itself looks significantly better.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

It's still not totally correct though as there's still the "lower bar" appearing partically blocking the gunsight (very lower end). Instead of that bar the pilot should be able to see the nose section of the aircraft threw behind that piece.

 

That on the other hand would require a reqork of the external 3d model to adjust the aircrafts nose panels to match the effects caused by refraction, which frankly devs said won't happen (unfortunately). So it's definetly not perfect but a working compromise. Not nessecarily pretty but you can at least keep your foe in your sight (quite literally).

 

Edit: Also, as seen on your picture, the gunsight is moved out of the glass caused by your head shift making it unsuted for combat.

 

Edit: Here's the discussion for those interested: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/9152-ultimate-fw190-photo-evidence-thread/

Edited December 22, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[SR-F_Winger]

 

 

Try to move the pilot head backward and then save a quickview of the new head position. When the position of the camera in the cockpit is where it should be (as when the pilot's head is resting on the headrest), the framing is not an issue anymore. The default view is way too close of the instrument panel. 

 

 

Have fun spotting contacts like that:)

Seriously the FOV is FAR too wide in this screen for my taste. Even the leading edges look as if the wingtips would point to the planes nose.

My big hope lies in VR headsets. FOVs wont be that much of an issue anymore.

[JtD]

Head against the headrest certainly isn't where the pilots head should be. If you ever sat in a real Fw190 or had just seen the cockpit close up, you'd know that the thing is designed for the head to be fairly close to the sight and instrument panel. The point is if you want to look forward (something you'd want to do as a fighter pilot), you look through the windscreen and the side panels, not the canopy. The whole thing isn't really much more than an arrow slit, and if you want to see anything, you need to be close.

 

If you check pictures of airborns Fw190's you'll find that the pilot's head is somewhere in the middle between headrest and gun sight.

[F/JG300_Gruber]

For the FoV and contact spotting, there is a zoom function.

 

For the head position within the cockpit, it all depends what you want to do :

 

 

For contact spotting around and formation flying I don't think that fold yourself in half towards the instrument panel is the right thing to do either.

 

BTW I'm not playing with full backward position (because the headrest become an annoyance to check 6 with the trackIR) but on the whole course of the head position offered by the game, I'm roughly 1/4 forward, instead of the 3/4 or so by default, and canopy framing is still not an issue.

 

I just wanted to show to what extent you can tweak your vision in the cockpit to your liking. 

[Crump]

 

Published on Dec 1, 2015

Aerobatics with hard 3D spinning and snap roll.

Fw 190 A-3 fighter in "Il-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad", summer season. Fuel 100kg, no weapons, winds calm.

Test pilot: Han

 

 

With 100Kg of fuel??  

[SR-F_Winger]

 

With 100Kg of fuel??  

Hah, maybe because he would stall out of the sky with the crate otherwise?

[LittleJP]

Rollrate and climbrate?

[tailwheel]

It's still not totally correct though as there's still the "lower bar" appearing partically blocking the gunsight (very lower end). Instead of that bar the pilot should be able to see the nose section of the aircraft threw behind that piece.

 

That on the other hand would require a reqork of the external 3d model to adjust the aircrafts nose panels to match the effects caused by refraction, which frankly devs said won't happen (unfortunately). So it's definetly not perfect but a working compromise. Not nessecarily pretty but you can at least keep your foe in your sight (quite literally).

 

Edit: Also, as seen on your picture, the gunsight is moved out of the glass caused by your head shift making it unsuted for combat.

 

Edit: Here's the discussion for those interested: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/9152-ultimate-fw190-photo-evidence-thread/

 

If the refraction won't be simulated, could we just have the bottom bar removed? I'd think that would be an easier and more acceptable compromise.

When I fly the 190 I basically have my 'face' in the frount window area to try to negate the thick frame. Without track IR that would be a pain in the tuckus.

[150GCT_Veltro]

We have some problems in BoS, but this is the best sim.

 

As said above, The King is dead, long live The King!