Jump to content
SCG_PeeGee

Fw190 windscreen bar

Recommended Posts

So far i've not seen a single complain about Fw 190 FM since the day it got fixed.

 

Now, guess why you can still see complains about this damn bar that forces you to raise your head ABOVE the gunsight to be able to follow a bandit in your 12 and shot at it blindly at least half the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wait til the Mustang boys take up residence for Okinawa!

I was active on DCS forums in P-51 section and still keep looking whats happening down there, I honestly doubt we will reach any close levels to that with P-51. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to making a one sided meshface/texture, it is possible in many 3d apps/engines but may/may not be possible in il2.

 

Would need a lot of fudging though imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wait til the Mustang boys take up residence for Okinawa!

If they started now and posted 24/7 in shifts for the next 2 years they'd still never catch up.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious why VR would make a difference.

It's much easier to lift your head and look over it, cockpit obstructions in general are just less of a problem in VR.

 

For what it's worth I do think that having such a big bar is not very realistic, the refraction argument is compelling IMO. I also think the 190 probably suffers more than most planes, and it would be nice to have a more realistic representation ... but I'm not going to get upset about it

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In VR you have stereoscopic vision so can track objects easier when they would normally be obscured. The correct measurements also give a refractive effect so although you can see the glass is thick, the impression is that it isn't.

 

You'd have to try it to see.

 

Von Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people are only happy when they've got something to complain about...

That's the Lufties through and through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The view is perfect in VR.

The FW-190 is beautiful and accurate in full 3D. My advice is to stop complaining and invest instead.

Edited by Lensman
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was active on DCS forums in P-51 section and still keep looking whats happening down there, I honestly doubt we will reach any close levels to that with P-51. 

 

Trot out a P-51 with demonstrably wrong FM, tell fanbois the FM is correct and to stop whining and we will see what the response is in these forums.

If they started now and posted 24/7 in shifts for the next 2 years they'd still never catch up.

 

And moreover will never catch up with the virtue-signalling that pops in every one of these threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once it becomes possible to add refraction to the shader computations, there are a couple of cockpits views that will look a bit different. There are many "bars" that will go away. Until then.. *yawn*...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once it becomes possible to add refraction to the shader computations, there are a couple of cockpits views that will look a bit different. There are many "bars" that will go away. Until then.. *yawn*...

 

 

"Yawn", wow.  If you find this so boring, why even read it?   Instead of wasting your time here, you could be off writing one of those spell-binding threads about community participation or such like. 

Edited by Wulf
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yawn", wow.  If you find this so boring, why even read it?   Instead of wasting your time here, you could be off writing one of those spell-binding threads about community participation or such like.

 

It would be indeed great if refraction could be added. But it has been explained why it is not there and why it will be not there anytime soon. So, just bemourning it isn't there is slightly short of interesting. But someone might have another idea, a workable solution for or problem here. Fact is that no plane featuring a thick and tilted windscreen will have the correct view from the cockpit. They just don't. To different degree, but they don't.

 

In this thread, the problem was pointed out somehow, but sadly no creative way of solving the issue that I could find has been presented. If there was more effort to bring up a solution rather than complaining there would be much less yawn.

 

For my part, I still think there is a solution to any problem. As I, I guess as much as you do, want to have the issue fixed at some point, will keep on reading such threads in the hope of finding a creative idea to deal with the issue. There were some very contructive contributions in detailing the issue. Eventually, it will get fixed.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple truth is that what we have in the game i.e. in respect to 'the bar', is incorrect, or are you disputing that? 

 

Actually I don't think it's quite as simple as that. This being a simulator, there is no way things will ever be "correct" in the sense of it accurately simulating and visually representing every single aspect of the world it recreates.

 

I'm going to offer the, perhaps controversial, viewpoint, that the Fw 190 A3 cockpit was modeled "correctly", when the plane was first released (and where the "bar issue" was massive to the point of the pilot being half-blind). The original cockpit model copied the exact dimensions of the actual Fw 190 cockpit and in that sense, it was "correct". The redesigned pit, which created sort of a compromise by deliberately changing the dimensions of the bars holding the armored glass, on the other hand is absolutely "incorrect",  but that is a good thing, because it offers a compromise that allows the cockpit to be functional without looking massively "wrong".

 

In a perfect world, refraction would be modeled, but in reality I'm content with compromises like this one.

 

Sometimes making this "correct" in a sim is not the right way to go, because it highlights a weak point of the simulation and ends up looking worse for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a simulation is not capturing the essence of a feature it isn't correct. Even if 3D data matches. The difference between a simulation and an arcade game is not the accuracy of the 3D model of an aircraft, it is the accurate representation of its behaviour.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The redesigned pit, which created sort of a compromise by deliberately changing the dimensions of the bars holding the armored glass, on the other hand is absolutely "incorrect",  but that is a good thing, because it offers a compromise that allows the cockpit to be functional without looking massively "wrong".

 

Right, I'm a big fan of "fudging it" to give the right outcome ... even if the means you use to achieve it are not entirely accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be it is possible to make the windshield framing textures transparent where it is to thick?

 

I dont know if it is possible to make textures transparent from one side and normal on the outside, this would be a good compromise, of course it would not simulate the downward viewange from refraction but it would be better then now, what do you think?

I hate to Qoute myself but there might be a solution, it would be in any case better if it workes like i think it would.

 

It is sad to see how some people allways cry out and accuse people to be Luftwhiners when there is something wrong in the game with german planes, even if they were right.

Im curios to see how it will be if the Spit is out and not performe like it should, will you call them RAFWhiners or in case of US planes USWhiners when people complaining about wrong FMs?

I bet there will be much less negative postings from the same people who bashed other people for saying what was right, look at the 190 as an example, it was fixed and people become happy.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no! Please, not again - this is going to be a never ending story! Bloody hell - "never wake up a sleeping dog!"  :dash:  :dash:  :dash:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no! Please, not again - this is going to be a never ending story! Bloody hell - "never wake up a sleeping dog!"  :dash:  :dash:  :dash:

Limahl, I think.

 

You need to be of a certain generation to get that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to Qoute myself but there might be a solution, it would be in any case better if it workes like i think it would.

 

It is sad to see how some people allways cry out and accuse people to be Luftwhiners when there is something wrong in the game with german planes, even if they were right.

Im curios to see how it will be if the Spit is out and not performe like it should, will you call them RAFWhiners or in case of US planes USWhiners when people complaining about wrong FMs?

I bet there will be much less negative postings from the same people who bashed other people for saying what was right, look at the 190 as an example, it was fixed and people become happy.

 

This thread suggests otherwise.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the Lufties through and through.

A cursory glance at your posting history shows the first page is almost nothing but complaints. You must be a "lufty".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a simulation is not capturing the essence of a feature it isn't correct. Even if 3D data matches. The difference between a simulation and an arcade game is not the accuracy of the 3D model of an aircraft, it is the accurate representation of its behaviour.

So I guess DCS is an arcade game then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's imagine you have some guy complaining on the forum that the simulated glass and Perspex in the Yak canopy is opaque.  He said he's tried adjusting the seat and he's tried flying with the canopy open but no matter what he does, he  just can't see properly. 

 

Just how useful do you imagine it would be if at that point, someone else piped-up and noted that, if he'd care to check, he'd find that the actual dimensions of the Yak cockpit are perfectly correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess DCS is an arcade game then?

DCS simulates the startup and other systems modelling very well.

Edited by JG13_opcode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DCS simulates the startup and other systems modelling very well.

I'm not talking about the start up, both IL-2 and DCS have very accurate start ups (just in one you have to click it yourself, the other is automatic).

 

I meant the fact that in DCS the FW190 has the same Issue with the Armoured Glass Bars, saying that a game is arcadey because it doesn't simulate refraction is silly.

 

I know DCS is the most realistic sim regarding systems etc, and that was my point (aka sarcasm)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess DCS is an arcade game then?

I don't think so. Is in your opinion DCS that inaccurate in representing the characteristics of the aircraft?

 

Edit: Ah, I see, you were just trolling. Never mind.

Edited by JtD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a simulation is not capturing the essence of a feature it isn't correct. Even if 3D data matches. The difference between a simulation and an arcade game is not the accuracy of the 3D model of an aircraft, it is the accurate representation of its behaviour.

So don't you think a smaller bar captures the essence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So don't you think a smaller bar captures the essence?

Actually I think he considers it an acceptable, if not ideal, compromise, which is how most of us see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my 5 cents (while i can live with the Bar as is):
A Flightsim is about simulating the experience of flying the real aircraft. Part of that its simulating the proper view the pilot has in the real aircraft. If enginelimitations keep me from doing so (Catchword refraction) then I(and thats just me) would use the possibilities computergames give me to fix the issue by just modifying the geometry (in this case reduce the size of the bars geometry so the view matches the real view with refraction in place). BUT - I would do this not only on one airplane but all that have panzerglass.
Honestly I dont know what keeps the devs from just modifying the geometry. I am no gamedev but I am 3D-Artist and i know that manhourwise its a matter of a few hours to fix all the planes that suffer from that. And this even despite the fact it would leave me with probably inaccurate geometry if compared to blueprints. We all know that the cockpitgeometry viewed by the pilot is not the same as the geometry the outside viewer gets to see. If it was and the plane would start to look diffrent from the outside due to these changes I would probably leave it as it is.
What I also think is that this is not a biased decision the devs made since there is german and allied aircraft that suffer from this lack of refractionmodeling. Its just a decision that was made to model accurately. And this impacts the one plane more than the other. Customerbase doesnt like the bars - aven thou just a part of the community - so why not just fix it? For all planes. The effort in manhours cant be it i believe. Correct me if i am wrong.

Edited by Irgendjemand
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it needed to alter the outside 3D Model?

 

There should be a way to make the Bars transparent where it is to thick while leaving the outside 3D Model as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it needed to alter the outside 3D Model?

 

There should be a way to make the Bars transparent where it is to thick while leaving the outside 3D Model as it is.

 

its not. Thats my point.

The model of the inside model (cockpit view) would need to be modified.

Alternatively you are right you could just modify the alpha and make it transparent. But modifying the geometry of the frame that holds the panzerglas would be the proper solution. After all it is visible in the real thing. Just not to the degree we see it without refraction in place.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we should accept a compromise even if it is not completely correclty modelled. I think Ishtaru got a good idea that could perhaps be used. Eventually however it will be a lot of work for the dev (perhaps it is worth it) since then all aircraft with armored glass could be concerned. Even if not as dramatic in case of flat glass and less sloped glass, some would rightly consider that their favourite aircraft need improvements in visibility. It will be more difficult for devs to refuse to do it for other aircraft without risking  huge forum "apocalypes"... Still it will not be a lot of AC to modify, even if it would have to be done so that it looks good and not only practical.

 

Also making frames parts invisible doesn't go without problems since as i understood (maybe wrong here) refraction is also in relation to the pilots head, so it could also give advantages in some cases, at some angles giving better visibility and by not modelling the slight distortion that exists in the real thing? Just a question.

Edited by Caudron431Micha
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my 5 cents (while i can live with the Bar as is):

A Flightsim is about simulating the experience of flying the real aircraft. Part of that its simulating the proper view the pilot has in the real aircraft. If enginelimitations keep me from doing so (Catchword refraction) then I(and thats just me) would use the possibilities computergames give me to fix the issue by just modifying the geometry (in this case reduce the size of the bars geometry so the view matches the real view with refraction in place). BUT - I would do this not only on one airplane but all that have panzerglass.

 

This exactly sums up my position.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone considered that it might be more difficult for the devs to implement than one might think?.

 

They're surely aware of the issue and have likely looked at it.

 

If it were a "simple" mesh tweak for example im sure it would have been tested.

 

Have the devs given feedback on this infamous problem?

 

My point being that we shouldnt berate the devs for something we see as "easy" as often in dev reality its usually far more complex than we realise.

Edited by OrLoK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

in this case reduce the size of the bars geometry so the view matches the real view with refraction in place

 

This is not really good enough, I'm affraid, as it can't. Refraction angle depends on the angle you are looking at the glass as well. This means the lower you are looking on that window, the more downward will the view be. You not only get the perception of a thinner window frame, you also see more downward over the nose. You have a lager field of view with glass than without. Thus, your actual vision ahead is slightly distorted enabling you to look more down over the nose of the aircraft, "lifting" the gunsight even further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be, just maybe, the longest running and most argued of all the IL-2 series "discussions" going back well over a dozen years now.

 

Pffff...not! It comes in third after

 

1: Trim on a slider

2: 0.50" vs Tiger Tank

 

Seriously guys....

 

Master

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In VR you have stereoscopic vision so can track objects easier when they would normally be obscured. The correct measurements also give a refractive effect so although you can see the glass is thick, the impression is that it isn't.

 

You'd have to try it to see.

 

Von Tom

Track IR solved the bar problem years ago.

 

Much like the psychological "I can`t see because the glass is `opaque`" complaint, it really isn`t a problem.

 

And, oh no, I`ve allowed myself to get into a decades old complaint...

Edited by seafireliv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

×
×
  • Create New...