Jump to content

Tactical Air War


=LG/F=Kathon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Cevertt

I am not part of any squad, can I play the new campaign?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCG_Nerfection
6 minutes ago, Cevert said:

I am not part of any squad, can I play the new campaign?

Yes, it's a public campaign. It's just not started yet. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=LG/F=Blvkhrt
7 hours ago, JG4_Widukind said:

My comrades are very unhappy that the option of not being able to remove the upper back armor plate, I can understand that very well, because this option can be removed at any time, takes a maximum of 5-10 minutes and is only attached with 3 screws. This option should be for everyone be free because it is a personal choice.



Everything can be fixed, no worries just conatct with Your supervisors!!!


 

"The Spitfire had turned tight into me, and he had me good. Only the protective armor plate behind my head kept me from being killed by a 20mm. I used to inspect all of the aircraft, as some men would take this plate out. It reduced rearward visibility by about twenty percent, so they removed it. I ordered all the plates replaced, and I made it clear I would court-martial any man who disobeyed. Three more of my pilots had a similar experience, and they were believers."

- Johannes Steinhoff 

 

 and

 

Galland in his memoirs mentions he was very unhappy when this plate was installed, the extra weight reducing performance. The next day he went up with this unwanted ballast, and he got hit by a Spitfire. Some projectiles were stopped by the armour plate. Needless to say, he changed his opinion about the plate that day.



Steinhoff and Galland.

Please contact with them ASAP change the historical orders and then told theml to catch me on TS.
:)


 

 

Edited by =LG=Blakhart
  • Like 5
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACG_Medln
7 hours ago, JG4_Widukind said:

 

991491C3-956A-4C31-AC71-296EE863B02F.jpeg

 

19 minutes ago, =LG=Blakhart said:

 

"The Spitfire had turned tight into me, and he had me good. Only the protective armor plate behind my head kept me from being killed by a 20mm. I used to inspect all of the aircraft, as some men would take this plate out. It reduced rearward visibility by about twenty percent, so they removed it. I ordered all the plates replaced, and I made it clear I would court-martial any man who disobeyed. Three more of my pilots had a similar experience, and they were believers."

- Johannes Steinhoff 

 

 

 

I never knew a picture with german language and a quote that's been posted in a forum without any quotation are good enough to call them historically accurate xDDD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13/JG5_Ehrler

You made the decision by doing a quick search on the forum with only two quotes of pilots and you think it must be historical? To be clear, I don't know any better about historically, maybe other guys here, but your way of proceeding sounds questionable. At least your arguing on comments about it. 

 

My last flight on ADW was a very long time ago. I´m looking forward to give a try on TAW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=LG/F=Blvkhrt
17 minutes ago, 13/JG5_Ehrler said:

You made the decision by doing a quick search on the forum with only two quotes of pilots and you think it must be historical? To be clear, I don't know any better about historically, maybe other guys here, but your way of proceeding sounds questionable. At least your arguing on comments about it. 

 

My last flight on ADW was a very long time ago. I´m looking forward to give a try on TAW.


Thanks.
To clarify, I did me reasearch via books, magazines and internet. Forum is a 2nd hand option. No worries.

 

I asked for support and recived historical data from many players, history fans from both sides.

Part of my conversation.

Quote

Regarding balance of planeset, Bf 109 F-4. The suggestion is to lock armored headrest for F-4 to a must-have. 
Reasoning:

1.Historical accuracy; As you probably know it was forbidden to remove the headrest. For example: Even Galland was denied permission to do so. Another: Steinoff threatened to court martial pilots that would try to remove it.

 


I can play this  "Historical accuracy game" - "I want this" and I`m using my "historical AMRAAMs" all day. 
Cool stuff.
Prepared myself well .

 

Si vis pacem para bellum.

1-0 so far

 

p.s.

Sorry, I`m out, need to finish new Manual.

Everyone who want to take part in BETA TESTS which should start in next week, need to contact with me on pm via Discord to receive new Manual and password to enter the server.

You can find me at TAW DC, click the link
What is more, we will slowly move general TAW discussion from forum to DC in next months

https://discord.gg/fNPpxz5wBg


 

Edited by =LG=Blakhart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG4_Widukind

 Yes you can see pictures with or without head armor on the net. And you read different books about it, so it was handled differently. In the end it remains a TAW decision whether you have to or a player decision whether you want to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2021 at 7:25 PM, JG77_Ammi said:

thats false in so many ways. in my early taw days the red side was always outnumbering the blue side. it changed because of the players not of the devs. accusing the lg of being biased is unfair. the lg in particular changes sides in just about every campaign. most squads do. you can see it here https://forgotten-taw.tuttovola.org/
 

Like you said your new to TAW . And where do i quote that LG is biased and unfair .. Hmmmmm !! 

Edited by KoN_
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACG_Medln
1 hour ago, =LG=Blakhart said:


Thanks.
To clarify, I did me reasearch via books, magazines and internet. Forum is a 2nd hand option. No worries.

 

I asked for support and recived historical data from many players, history fans from both sides.

Part of my conversation.

 


I can play this  "Historical accuracy game" - "I want this" and I`m using my "historical AMRAAMs" all day. 
Cool stuff.
Prepared myself well .

 

Si vis pacem para bellum.

1-0 so far

 

p.s.

Sorry, I`m out, need to finish new Manual.

Everyone who want to take part in BETA TESTS which should start in next week, need to contact with me on pm via Discord to receive new Manual and password to enter the server.

You can find me at TAW DC, click the link
What is more, we will slowly move general TAW discussion from forum to DC in next months

https://discord.gg/fNPpxz5wBg


 

could we please step back a little from the 1 to 1 historic accuracy then and just tell us that you're doing these specific changes because that's what's best for TAW!?!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG4_Thibaut
3 hours ago, =LG=Blakhart said:

"The Spitfire had turned tight into me, and he had me good. Only the protective armor plate behind my head kept me from being killed by a 20mm. I used to inspect all of the aircraft, as some men would take this plate out. It reduced rearward visibility by about twenty percent, so they removed it. I ordered all the plates replaced, and I made it clear I would court-martial any man who disobeyed. Three more of my pilots had a similar experience, and they were believers."

- Johannes Steinhoff 

 

 and

 

Galland in his memoirs mentions he was very unhappy when this plate was installed, the extra weight reducing performance. The next day he went up with this unwanted ballast, and he got hit by a Spitfire. Some projectiles were stopped by the armour plate. Needless to say, he changed his opinion about the plate that day.



Steinhoff and Galland.

Please contact with them ASAP change the historical orders and then told theml to catch me on TS.
:)


 

 

I think you are misinterpreting these quotes a little bit. First of all -please correct me if I am wrong- I think those came from the time of the battle of britain or at the end of it. That means it was the time these armour plates came up for the first time in 109s. So if Galland and Steinhoff state that pilots took the plates off, they probably mean that these pilots removed them completely. They might have done it in that manner to receive the original view state without any armour plate. Now I would asume that in the following time, when were forced to have them mounted, they tried to find a compromise and only took off the upper part. 

 

Here a 1942 example of a successful dogfighter in the desert:

image.png.9b3b46fe8bfbe40fd98f6d2bab3b1daa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG77_Ammi
Just now, KoN_ said:

Like you said your new to TAW . And where do i quote that LG is biased and unfair .. Hmmmmm !! 

sorry i must have misunderstood something. it's been a while. maybe i understood devs as taw devs, and not the il-2 devs...and nooo i am definitely not new to taw.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCG_Fenris_Wolf

Guys, what Blakhart said is sound and correct. It's been stated in historical documents, orders, and interviews many times.

 

 

Although I am having my doubts - if we leave the road of historical accuracy, then I may also be able to fly my beloved FW-190 A-3 from September '42 onwards... :scratch_one-s_head:

Edited by SCG_Fenris_Wolf
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cpt_Siddy
45 minutes ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

Guys, what Blakhart said is sound and correct. It's been stated in historical documents, orders, and interviews many times.

 

 

Although I am having my doubts - if we leave the road of historical accuracy, then I may also be able to fly my beloved FW-190 A-3 from September '42 onwards... :scratch_one-s_head:

 

 

Sure, if that means i get to fly La-5FUN :biggrin:

Edited by Cpt_Siddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCG_Wulfe

I really think the headrest removal should be optional on the 109, at least for the specialist planes received by combat points. Ideally for all. This IMO would be the most realistic representation. It was absolutely a unit by unit, pilot by pilot decision. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTC_daHeld

Well, wether a pilot was allowed to remove the armoured headrest or not was manly a decision of his commander.  It didn't happen too often, though

Over the last 25 years, I've looked at a few thousand 109 photographs. Most of them really show the headrest installed. Especially the G model was almost always fitted with it. The pictures without it are really few and far between.

Things improved with the introduction of the armoured glass headrest, the "Galland-Panzer", of course. But the production of the glass was very slow in the beginning, so that there were still often metal plates in use even after the Elra-Haube was introduced in the spring of 1944.

 

So I really get Blakhart's reasoning. But it also hampers the rearward visibility a lot, so I don't really know what the correct course of action would be.

Historically, the armour plate should be there.

Gameplay-wise, it's more fun without it.

 

I'm really looking forward to the campaign, though. I like the more historically accurate approach very much. Let's see how it turns out.

 

I also think they should keep the techno-chat off. I find it much more immersive that way, without loosing the chat function. 

I don't like flying around with guys that call out "80% throttle" for example. It tells me in an instant that those guys do not know what they're doing... I always tell them: "For god's sake look at your instruments and tell me the readings". Everyone in the squadron I lead (one of ACG's German-speaking squadrons) knows how to read their instruments.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=LG/F=Blvkhrt

Only less than 20 people want to help with tests ?
Well that`s strange...
Anyways I wait on Discord for your applications

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13 hours ago, JG4_Thibaut said:

 

 

This is for all players who will try to put any kind of pressure for making now changes for private business ( mostly because they fly only on one side ) to make things easier and better and boost some lines, etc.


This project gathers 800-1000 players in total per season ( according to stats ).
Active players is around 300-400.

It was extremely challenging to create a new system which will help balance, make both sides eqally atractive, improve  gameplay, renew the TAW, fit new historical planeset and keep it playable and first of all realistic.

 

Why such blackhearted dude is in charge of this generation shift ? ? ?
I was away from virtual flying last 5 years due to my work and family so let me introduce myself quickly becaue I feel like for some of You I`m the guy from nowhere making a revolution and puting everything upside down.

I can imagine that for some of You my comments or decisions dont have any value because we judge people mostly because of their record, what they do, what we know about them.
And I`m not the public person in il2, didnt care about my YT fame either.
Some of You remember me from old il2, some know me from Berloga, where I mostly train to come back to old shape after all this empty years.

So...
I`m flying this game last 15 years in very competetive way.
Dogfights, coop missions, coop based front wars, online wars, campaigns, tournaments, thousands of training 1vs1, 2vs2 and 4vs4 duels on same and asymetric planes. Dont even know how many hours I wasted in virtual skies...
Organised many events, campaigns and was one of the first TAW creators

Also... 
I have master degree and engineer degree of aviation, finished air force high school and Air Force Academy.
Active pilot since last 17 years with "some" experience and "few" FH on the back ;)


So yes, if you want to start discussion on Teamspeak or Discord about TAW, simulations, balance, history, aviation or this game I`m always open but don`t expect You will just put pressure on me and force to adopt Your point of view.

 

 

But even with such background I know I`m not the smartest, make plenty of mistakes and in our community we have many great people, history fans, aviations freaks and specialists from different branches who have more specialistic knowledge and exp than me.
Really.
I like to have inteligent people around me who can help with their knowledge and show me my mistakes or explain me some areas


That`s why I kindly asked on forum and discord for help with both blue and red sides.
https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21029-tactical-air-war/page/519/?tab=comments#comment-1071215


Plenty of helpful and smart people helped me with their knowledge, sources, pictures.

 

 

I wasn`t even asking them about their private backgorund, how long they are playing, etc.
I didnt judged or choosed who should help, everyone could,they just had to bring strong arguments and reliable sources, links, books.

 


This is not about LuftGangsta dictating everything and forcing people to fly like we want, because this is our campaign.

 

This is about being responsible not only for one side, not only for few people active on forum.

Its about creating this game all together when there is time for that not when You have solo and private desire.

Remember this for good.

 

If any of you feel like they can add something that`s great.
Next season come with historical facts, books and links and help us when we ask for help not when the decisions were already made :)

 

And I`m really consequent about my words, decisions and promises.
So... thanks in advance and don`t bother now :)


XD.thumb.png.72e4cf6e6404894bee4f931bdf566f81.png

Edited by =LG=Blakhart
  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I./ZG1_HeTzeR
22 hours ago, =LG=Blakhart said:

 

Hetzer... You old bastard 😀😀😀

 

I thought You are MIA

naaaa, just busy trying to teach people not to die while landing 😄

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CSW_Tommy544
5 hours ago, =LG=Blakhart said:

I have master degree and engineer degree of aviation, finished air force high school and Air Force Academy.

Active pilot since last 17 years with "some" experience and "few" FH on the back ;)

 

With such an interesting background, why don't you list some of the more interesting types you have flown/are flying? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13/JG5_Ehrler
19 hours ago, =LG=Blakhart said:


Prepared myself well .

 

Si vis pacem para bellum.

1-0 so far
 

I don't like your way of treating members of our community and mocking their arguments. Speaking as an engineer to an engineer, I simply have a different expectation of how to deal with each other. 

I have no fundamental dispute with you, as long as it really is a matter of historical fact. I'm not the right person to judge that. A 1-0 nonsense is needless here.

 

5 hours ago, =LG=Blakhart said:


This is not about LuftGangsta dictating everything and forcing people to fly like we want, because this is our campaign.

 

This is about being responsible not only for one side, not only for few people active on forum.

Its about creating this game all together when there is time for that not when You have solo and private desire.

Remember this for good.

 

It's good that you make that clear. It sounds a bit different sometimes. I'll write to you on Discord, see how I can help with testing.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ala13_Antiguo

The pilots that we bomb at level ... with which plane can we start flying?
This simulator is "lame" of bomber planes.
Will we have to fly fighters? .... attack aircraft?
(I'm an old ADW pilot ... and getting the bombers down to level was a very tedious job)
Greetings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACG_Medln
2 hours ago, 13/JG5_Ehrler said:

I don't like your way of treating members of our community and mocking their arguments.

 

cmon everybody can handle a little banter! It's not like that he outright insulted you so what's really the problem here 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StG2_Raven_VR

Donation status report 04/2021

 

 

On behalf of the TAW server teams, we would like to thank you very much for your donations.

 

 

Many of you donated again in 2021.

 

You have currently covered the costs by 100%.🙃

 

 

a small note on PayPal donations:

 

Examples:

 

1.00 Euro donation - 0.37 PayPal fees = 0.63 € reaches the server account

10.00 Euro donation - 0.60 PayPal fees = 9.40 € reaches the server account

50.00 Euro donation - 3.10 PayPal fees = 46.90 € reaches the server account

100.00 Euro donation - 4.84 PayPal fees = 95.16 € reaches the server account

 

So it makes sense to make a donation of 10 € as 10x 1 € 😉

 

 

A big thank you goes to HvB, 72AG, Jeremy B.

 

Thanks also to the many other donors

 

14.02.2021	=19GvFAB=CrazyFrog61		
20.02.2021	=OPFR=The_rooster		
20.02.2021	FF_Groucho		
20.02.2021	Flesch		
20.02.2021	KG200_Achilleus		
22.02.2021	=LG=Blakhart		
25.02.2021	callsign unknown*Александр Кнауб		
26.02.2021	JG4_Kruger		
27.02.2021	JG4_Matthias		
27.02.2021	RainbowCorner3		
28.02.2021	ILS_MLDD		
03.03.2021	Slawinski		
04.03.2021	callsign unknown*I.U.Gil		
09.03.2021	Gote		
20.03.2021	FF_Groucho		
20.03.2021	=OPFR=The_rooster		
22.03.2021	=LG=Blakhart		
25.03.2021	callsign unknown*Ryan W.		
26.03.2021	JG4_Kruger		
27.03.2021	JG4_Matthias		
27.03.2021	RainbowCorner3		
28.03.2021	ILS_MLDD		
01.04.2021	JG4_Moltke1871		
01.04.2021	JV44HeinzBar		
01.04.2021	72AGs_Battler		
02.04.2021	E69_Falke_Wolf		
02.04.2021	72AG_Mirveis		
02.04.2021	JG77_Puetscher		
02.04.2021	callsign unknown*Jeremy B.		
02.04.2021	SV_7 Vase		
03.04.2021	Slawinski	
03.04.2021	Cockster		
03.04.2021	SV_7 Vase		
03.04.2021	72AG_Inf		
03.04.2021	72AG_SerWolf		
03.04.2021	72AG_Brat		
03.04.2021	72AG_BRITVA		
03.04.2021	72AG_Bzzzt		
03.04.2021	72AG_Vovka		
03.04.2021	72AG_Grizli60rus		
04.04.2021	HvB		
04.04.2021	BigGinger		
05.04.2021	[FF] Fishe		
05.04.2021	JG4_Pylon		
05.04.2021	SCG_Wulfe		
06.04.2021	callsign unknown*Viktor S.		
07.04.2021	72AG_kalter		
08.04.2021	callsign unknown*John W.

 

Edited by StG2_Raven_VR
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCG_Wulfe

Ultimately I certainly see and understand the historical argument for the headrest inclusion on the 109s. It was on many/the majority of them. 

 

However let me articulate my two main arguments against making it mandatory in TAW/IL2. 

 

The first argument I have is that looking around the headrest in game is not the same as in real life. In real life you have the ability to switch eye dominance to the eye peering around an object. This would mean that your eye closest to the side glass (depending on which way you are turning to look) would be able to look around the backrest more effectively than we can in game. (Your outside eye would be placed to the side of the headrest and be able to scan left and right while your brain ignored the inside eye's view of the headrest.) On a monitor you essentially have 1 eye that is a compromise of the field of view of 2 eyes. While this part of the problem is overcome by 3d vision in VR, it's actually even worse for VR players as IL2 imposes artificial limits on head movement on the cockpit. In many 109's this area that your head can move in is much smaller than would be possible if you could press your head against the cockpit glass. Combining this with the armored headrest makes it almost impossible to see any of your six. I don't think that we should be pursuing historical reality in this case if the realized outcome means less than realistic/historical visual parity vs other aircraft in sim. (I know that's a wordy sentence, if it doesn't make sense just say so and I'll try to elaborate.)

 

Secondly, while it can be argued that historically the armored headrest was installed on the majority of 109s, for many experten, they would have had the leeway to make their own decision on this. I think if we must lock the headrest for the basic planes... at least allow it to be removed on the 'earned' planes to simulate the choice that did exist for some pilots... at least those that had clout/had earned the respect to make that call. 

 

Some considerations. Think about them and do what you will.

 

 

Edited by SCG_Wulfe
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG5_Schuck
1 hour ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

Secondly, while it can be argued that historically the armored headrest was installed on the majority of 109s, for many experten, they would have had the leeway to make their own decision on this. I think if we must lock the headrest for the basic planes... at least allow it to be removed on the 'earned' planes to simulate the choice that did exist for some pilots... at least those that had clout/had earned the respect to make that call. 

 

I fully understand why, and agree that the headrests should be fitted to the basic aircraft, in the same way loadouts should also be locked for others.

And as you say, maybe headrest removal and the removal of other restrictions could/should be 'earned' by experten.

I guess this could be when you reach a certain rank, or maybe if the pilot hasn't been killed on that particular map.

It would also add incentive to look after your virtual pilot, but would of course put a bigger price on his head!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG700_Rammjager
On 4/7/2021 at 6:28 PM, =LG=Blakhart said:

 

"The Spitfire had turned tight into me, and he had me good. Only the protective armor plate behind my head kept me from being killed by a 20mm. I used to inspect all of the aircraft, as some men would take this plate out. It reduced rearward visibility by about twenty percent, so they removed it. I ordered all the plates replaced, and I made it clear I would court-martial any man who disobeyed. Three more of my pilots had a similar experience, and they were believers."

- Johannes Steinhoff 

 

 and

 

Galland in his memoirs mentions he was very unhappy when this plate was installed, the extra weight reducing performance. The next day he went up with this unwanted ballast, and he got hit by a Spitfire. Some projectiles were stopped by the armour plate. Needless to say, he changed his opinion about the plate that day.



Steinhoff and Galland.
 

 

Steinhoff and Galland were right.

That armour plates saved their lives from 20mm shell. In real.  We have game.

Do You really belive that the same thing is modelled in game ? If You had an enemy behind and close to You in 90% cases You will be downed. And having that plate nothing change. Except rear visibility.

 

Ramm.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG4_Matthias

The view is certainly restricted by the back plate, but you now know that it will stay in the plane and you have enough time to adjust to it, accept it and train with it

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WokeUpDead
10 hours ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

The first argument I have is that looking around the headrest in game is not the same as in real life. In real life you have the ability to switch eye dominance to the eye peering around an object. This would mean that your eye closest to the side glass (depending on which way you are turning to look) would be able to look around the backrest more effectively than we can in game. (Your outside eye would be placed to the side of the headrest and be able to scan left and right while your brain ignored the inside eye's view of the headrest.) 

 


I don’t think you can turn your head back to the left far enough with both your shoulders held back by straps to have your right eye look around the headrest like this:

DED3454E-BBDC-4209-AC8E-EEFFFC5C2495.thumb.jpeg.b3f1dcc84533b2243c1b25aae3b1291f.jpeg


Instead pilots looked back like this:

4187E524-676D-4A77-A84A-ECDEF7764749.thumb.jpeg.fefec35aaa2f21a7a61dd1566910d096.jpeg

F16C6A4B-3CB9-400E-9528-029292137667.thumb.jpeg.61ed4a27839aa1d01c87ea2ea10b016e.jpeg


I bet we actually get a better view of our six in game than real pilots could.

Edited by WokeUpDead
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cpt_Siddy

Fly in VR if you want to find out why there is, even now, mirrors in some fighter planes. 

 

s167.daydaynews.jpg.5803da480188fc114fce90073baaae0f.jpg

 

I had fun time with neck pains when i was starting VR simming... Now my neck is thick like a lumberjacks bicep, i can kill with it. 

  • Haha 7
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=TH=mincer
57 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

I had fun time with neck pains when i was starting VR simming... Now my neck is thick like a lumberjacks bicep, i can kill with it. 

 

VR pilot's neck versus regular pilot's neck:

daddy-long-neck-meets-wide-neck-800x400.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barnacles
On 4/7/2021 at 10:28 AM, JG4_Widukind said:

My comrades are very unhappy that the option of not being able to remove the upper back armor plate, I can understand that very well, because this option can be removed at any time, takes a maximum of 5-10 minutes and is only attached with 3 screws. This option should be for everyone be free because it is a personal choice.

Headrest Examble:109E and F are the same:

https://de-de.facebook.com/129889520415326/photos/pcb.4754029194667979/4754026351334930/?type=3&theater

 

https://de-de.facebook.com/129889520415326/photos/pcb.4754029194667979/4754023828001849/?type=3&theater

 

 

 

 

991491C3-956A-4C31-AC71-296EE863B02F.jpeg

 

Maybe remind your comrades that if they are flying a model of 109 with that type of headrest, then in all likelihood their plane massively outperforms the opposition?
Maybe that will cheer them up and make them less unhappy.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 8
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=GEMINI=IngegnerTommy
On 4/8/2021 at 9:29 AM, =LG=Blakhart said:

Only less than 20 people want to help with tests ?
Well that`s strange...
Anyways I wait on Discord for your applications

 

Is there a testing phase open, for which you are looking at applications? 

TAW discord is rather empty of information :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barnacles
13 hours ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

Ultimately I certainly see and understand the historical argument for the headrest inclusion on the 109s. It was on many/the majority of them. 

 

However let me articulate my two main arguments against making it mandatory in TAW/IL2. 

 

The first argument I have is that looking around the headrest in game is not the same as in real life. In real life you have the ability to switch eye dominance to the eye peering around an object. This would mean that your eye closest to the side glass (depending on which way you are turning to look) would be able to look around the backrest more effectively than we can in game. (Your outside eye would be placed to the side of the headrest and be able to scan left and right while your brain ignored the inside eye's view of the headrest.) On a monitor you essentially have 1 eye that is a compromise of the field of view of 2 eyes. While this part of the problem is overcome by 3d vision in VR, it's actually even worse for VR players as IL2 imposes artificial limits on head movement on the cockpit. In many 109's this area that your head can move in is much smaller than would be possible if you could press your head against the cockpit glass. Combining this with the armored headrest makes it almost impossible to see any of your six. I don't think that we should be pursuing historical reality in this case if the realized outcome means less than realistic/historical visual parity vs other aircraft in sim. (I know that's a wordy sentence, if it doesn't make sense just say so and I'll try to elaborate.)

 

Secondly, while it can be argued that historically the armored headrest was installed on the majority of 109s, for many experten, they would have had the leeway to make their own decision on this. I think if we must lock the headrest for the basic planes... at least allow it to be removed on the 'earned' planes to simulate the choice that did exist for some pilots... at least those that had clout/had earned the respect to make that call. 

 

Some considerations. Think about them and do what you will.

 

 

Your point about binocular vision is interesting. In VR I do find that the addition of the extra armour makes a big difference to my SA, but on a monitor, it really doesn't matter. 

 

I think IRL some airframes just didn't have it, it wasn't just a case of senior officers deciding to feng shui their cockpits. Possibly it was sometimes shortage of plate available in the factories. 

 

Seriously I think if you're going the 'historical' point of view a proportion of planes should have a removed headrest, but from the competition side I would be happy to make a small concession to yeild a small competitive advantage owing to the fact that the planes in question generally have many other more significant advantages over the opposing side's planes. 

Edited by Barnacles
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCG_Wulfe
7 hours ago, WokeUpDead said:


I don’t think you can turn your head back to the left far enough with both your shoulders held back by straps to have your right eye look around the headrest like this:

DED3454E-BBDC-4209-AC8E-EEFFFC5C2495.thumb.jpeg.b3f1dcc84533b2243c1b25aae3b1291f.jpeg


Instead pilots looked back like this:

4187E524-676D-4A77-A84A-ECDEF7764749.thumb.jpeg.fefec35aaa2f21a7a61dd1566910d096.jpeg

F16C6A4B-3CB9-400E-9528-029292137667.thumb.jpeg.61ed4a27839aa1d01c87ea2ea10b016e.jpeg


I bet we actually get a better view of our six in game than real pilots could.

 

You'd be surprised how flexible my neck has gotten from flying VR, I can only slightly rotate a shoulder forward and have a similar view to your woman in car picture. Also it is documented that pilots would loosen straps to look behind them.

 

This video of a modern pilot in a 109 is a good example. Look how much he is still able to turn his torso while strapped in. (Time to watch is 9:19)

 

(Also, try pushing back on your right shoulder with your left hand while rotating your neck as far to the left as you can. You will find that this actually increases the strength/ability of your neck muscles to rotate your cervical spine further than it would otherwise be able to without the immobilized shoulder.)

 

 

 

 

Edited by SCG_Wulfe
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WokeUpDead
2 hours ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

This video of a modern pilot in a 109 is a good example. Look how much he is still able to turn his torso while strapped in. (Time to watch is 9:19)

 


He’s doing what the Spit pilot in my image is doing; shifting to his right to look behind to his left. His right eye is not pressed up against the left side cockpit glass to look around the headrest like you describe in your other post. Stereoscopic vision around the headrest is not happening here.

C074B85D-8E20-463E-8691-3574838B7C2D.thumb.jpeg.07b1485c5f7c4b7cae99f18f3a4322c1.jpeg

 

EA6D571E-9B50-4DB5-A2E9-6D3882D850C5.thumb.jpeg.9be74a6cb45161b8d67e7475f36655d9.jpeg

 

He can’t look around the headrest like we can in our unstrapped swivel chair or with our mouse and joystick hats, so his real headrest is more vision-obstructing than our virtual ones.

Edited by WokeUpDead
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCG_Wulfe
1 hour ago, WokeUpDead said:


He’s doing what the Spit pilot in my image is doing; shifting to his right to look behind to his left. His right eye is not pressed up against the left side cockpit glass to look around the headrest like you describe in your other post. Stereoscopic vision around the headrest is not happening here.

C074B85D-8E20-463E-8691-3574838B7C2D.thumb.jpeg.07b1485c5f7c4b7cae99f18f3a4322c1.jpeg

 

EA6D571E-9B50-4DB5-A2E9-6D3882D850C5.thumb.jpeg.9be74a6cb45161b8d67e7475f36655d9.jpeg

 

He can’t look around the headrest like we can in our unstrapped swivel chair or with our mouse and joystick hats, so his real headrest is more vision-obstructing than our virtual ones.

 

I don't have a swivel chair or use a mouse and joystick hat. I use VR. My seating position is compliant to a ww2 fighter cockpit. My point with the video was not that he was doing exactly what I stated and putting his face to the glass, rather that he was demonstrating the ability to turn ones neck significantly while strapped in. I can turn my neck further than he is in this video. Also, if I really want to see behind my aircraft with an 'outside eye', I can actually get the best angle by turning my neck the opposite way of the side I'm looking on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTC_Vietkong_Evil

I´d like to see that pilot doing that while pulling some serious G.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG5_Schuck

Its ok for me.

Especially as schools now (in the UK) just don't teach modern History, well only history they want us to know!

Interest in WWII aviation is kept alive through sims like IL2.

Hopefully historically based servers like TAW will give a better perspective and understanding of this.

And while IL2 tries to cater for all tastes from the casual pilot to the full real, we all simmers together..... 

Only by learning from history will we be able to prevent it from repeating itself.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl_infar
4 hours ago, ACG_Vietkong said:

I´d like to see that pilot doing that while pulling some serious G.

Exactly my thought

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • BlackSix locked and unpinned this topic
  • BlackSix unlocked this topic
  • BlackSix pinned this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...