Fw190 windscreen bar

[Irgendjemand]

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.

 

OK, sorry. I should have said "get the view closer to the one in the real thing".

 

[=VARP=Cygann]

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.

 

This would be true if glass was the most forward part of the plane, but since there is the cowling in front, it means you see more of the cowling (in fact you see near all of it instead of just last third of it), but you sure can't see under it, or how you say 'over the nose'.

[JtD]

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

Finkeren pitched the idea of "more accurate 3D = more 'correct'", I was merely opposing this idea. The smaller bar imho is more 'correct' than the accurate 3D version, because it captures the essence of the subject much better - which imho is what matters in simulation.

[Finkeren]

Finkeren pitched the idea of "more accurate 3D = more 'correct'", I was merely opposing this idea. The smaller bar imho is more 'correct' than the accurate 3D version, because it captures the essence of the subject much better - which imho is what matters in simulation.

I actually agree with you in all but semantics. Obviously the "incorrect" compromise is a better representation of reality, but it still doesn't change the fact, that the original 3D model was absolutely "correct" in the litteral sense and that the new model definitely is "incorrect" despite giving a better representation of reality.

 

The fact that refraction isn't modeled did not make the original model any less correct.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Finkeren

[ZachariasX]

This would be true if glass was the most forward part of the plane, but since there is the cowling in front, it means you see more of the cowling (in fact you see near all of it instead of just last third of it), but you sure can't see under it, or how you say 'over the nose'.

Without refraction, "the bar" (in true dimensions) limits the lower limit of the forward view, not the cowling. But worse than that is that the lower part of the gunsight is covered by the bar, the region that you would use for lead aiming. You basically have a broken visor. Also, the thicker the bars around the windscreen are, the harder it is to track your mark when it moves scross the screen. You significantly compromise the gun platform as a whole.

[Beazil]

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?

If possible, this sounds like a pretty good solution *(not sure if debunked - haven't read that far yet*).

[LukeFF]

Have the devs given feedback on this infamous problem?

Yes, plenty of times.

 

If possible, this sounds like a pretty good solution *(not sure if debunked - haven't read that far yet*).

Not my intention to be sarcastic here - please see the other countless discussions about this here. It is very, very, very, very well-covered ground. Edited May 22, 2017 by LukeFF

[Wulf]

Without refraction, "the bar" (in true dimensions) limits the lower limit of the forward view, not the cowling. But worse than that is that the lower part of the gunsight is covered by the bar, the region that you would use for lead aiming. You basically have a broken visor. Also, the thicker the bars around the windscreen are, the harder it is to track your mark when it moves scross the screen. You significantly compromise the gun platform as a whole.

 

 

Yes agreed.  Zacharias, I may have misread your previous comment.  If I did I apologize.

[CUJO_1970]

Poor guy - he has mere 25 posts. Obviously not a regular poster and is now the recipient of three pages of people calling him a whiner.

 

Well done, gentlemen.

[LukeFF]

Poor guy - he has mere 25 posts. Obviously not a regular poster and is now the recipient of three pages of people calling him a whiner.

 

Well done, gentlemen.

No, that's just you wildly over-exaggerating things.

 

Well done.

[Danziger]

Didn't they already make "the bar" as small as they could?

[ShamrockOneFive]

Didn't they already make "the bar" as small as they could?

 

I believe they did make some sort of modification. It became easier to see targets after whatever change it was that they made... a few years back now.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I wonder how much you can get the bar smaller without the cowling getting in the way. To achieve the actual line of sight without modelling refraction they would have to lower the cowling 3D model from the pilot's perspective as well.

 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

I wonder how much you can get the bar smaller without the cowling getting in the way. To achieve the actual line of sight without modelling refraction they would have to lower the cowling 3D model from the pilot's perspective as well.

This is my impression as well. Hence I'm also not sure if one can cheat on the geometry more than the devs already have to give us what I think is a useful compromise.

[Livai]

Houston, we have a problem. What? Not again!
Some really want the old bar back!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LukeFF]

So, a 190 walks into a bar...

[SYN_Mike77]

Houston, we have a problem. What? Not again!

Some really want the old bar back!!!

Looking at the after screen shot and the photo in the OP I'd say I'm amazed at how close they got it and I think we can call it a job well done.  Move along now.

[Wulf]

Looking at the after screen shot and the photo in the OP I'd say I'm amazed at how close they got it and I think we can call it a job well done.  Move along now.

 

 

Yeah except, if you have a look at the OP's photo (and use your imagination to include the cockpit combing) and then compare it with the "after" shot above, you'll notice that they're not close at all.  Not even a little bit.

 

Unfortunately, the struggle is ongoing. 

[SYN_Mike77]

I guess if I had one complaint looking at the Op picture and the after picture provided by Livai it would be that the side bars leading down to the bottom bar are too thin in the game.  They need to be put back where they were before the fix.

[=SqSq=Sulaco]

Awww

 

I thought this was another surprise giveaway.

I'll admit to laughing harder than I should have at this.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

So, a 190 walks into a bar...

 

"... takes three shots of synthetic, stalls hard over a wing and bounces while landing on the barroom floor."

Edited May 23, 2017 by Space_Ghost

[Livai]

I guess if I had one complaint looking at the Op picture and the after picture provided by Livai it would be that the side bars leading down to the bottom bar are too thin in the game.  They need to be put back where they were before the fix.

 

Read here the whole topic: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/9152-ultimate-fw190-photo-evidence-thread/

[303_Kwiatek]

Houston, we have a problem. What? Not again!

Some really want the old bar back!!!

 

 

What about these?

 

 

or these

 

 

or these

 

 

What is the closiest to these:

 

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by 303_Kwiatek

[Livai]

What about these?

 

 

 

 

or these

 

 

or these

 

 

What is the closiest to these:

 

 

 

 

 

Your call, now we are back where everything started Anno 2014 here the link & I see it coming the round two: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/9152-ultimate-fw190-photo-evidence-thread/

BTW I am not the one who started it........

 

[SYN_Mike77]

What about these?

 

 

or these

 

 

or these

 

 

What is the closiest to these:

 

 

Looks amazingly good!  Nice job devs.  Except those side bars do look a tad thin in the game screen shots.

Edited May 24, 2017 by SYN_Mike77

[Riderocket]

Maybe when the Devs implement the Technology for Collimator sights for midway (the ones similar to rise of flights), they could make all the armoured glass giant Collimators.

[novicebutdeadly]

And here I was thinking that this issue had been thoroughly discussed, was done and dusted, sorted, resolved, ended, over, decided, and if you like finished...

All we need now is someone to derail this thread by a completely off topic piece...

 

Oh I know, the Mig3 shouldn't have wing canons in this time period, and no production aircraft were ever fitted with slats 

[Danziger]

Oh I know, the Mig3 shouldn't have wing canons in this time period, and no production aircraft were ever fitted with slats

The MiG-3 never had wing cannons. Ours has optional underwing machine guns. Also slats were one of the first upgrades for the MiG-3.

[novicebutdeadly]

The MiG-3 never had wing cannons. Ours has optional underwing machine guns. Also slats were one of the first upgrades for the MiG-3.

I just did a bit more reading and the later production Mig3's did have wing slats (were available in mid to late 1941 so correct for time frame).

 

Do you know when 20mm's were first used in the Mig's (fuselage mounted)?

[Finkeren]

I just did a bit more reading and the later production Mig3's did have wing slats (were available in mid to late 1941 so correct for time frame).

 

Do you know when 20mm's were first used in the Mig's (fuselage mounted)?

The UBS-armed version started production in September 1941 at Zavod 1. 315 of them were built.

 

The ShVAK-armed ones were the last ones made at Kuybyshev, before production closed down in the beginning of 1942. 52 of them were made.

 

The MiG-3's with wing guns were mostly a spring-summer 1941 thing. By the fall of 1941 production of them had all but terminated. IIRC the wing guns were always installed at the factory, never as a field mod.

[StG2_Manfred]

What about these?

 

 

or these

 

 

or these

 

 

What is the closiest to these:

 

 

Thanks Kwiatek for your endless and comprehensive contributions. This one is again right between the eyes!

 

And to all off-topics repliy makers in this thread. Guess who is the fanboy and the whiner! It's again more than obvious and harm this sim in the end...

[LuftManu]

Il-2 always set the bar too high. The planes are really lovely

 

   

[OrLoK]

Il-2 always set the bar too high. The planes are really lovely

 

   

Badum Tish!

[Livai]

What about these?

 

This one is better..........

[Chief_Mouser]

Stupid bar argument. Been fed up with it for at least 10 years.

How about putting so-called bars in all of the other aircraft just to make it even?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I wonder how much you can get the bar smaller without the cowling getting in the way. To achieve the actual line of sight without modelling refraction they would have to lower the cowling 3D model from the pilot's perspective as well.

From what I understand this is basucly what they've done. I remember back in the days Han saying that shifting the "bar" further down would only reveal the cowling to obstruct the same area of sight and that ressources to rework the shape of the cowling (which physicly is also affected by refraction) were unavailabel.

 

Since modeling refraction is out of question there's only a variety of compromises to chose from. You could tweak the 3d model (as it's currently done) or give the windscreen a picture in picture feauture based on the mirror technology (which in unlikely to provide the quality nessecary for flurent air combat).

 

That said I'm still kind of happy how it is right now although I preferr WTs solution.

[AndyJWest]

Given that the view forward through the windscreen is functionally identical to what you'd see without the glass if you sat an inch or two higher, the simplest solution is to move the viewpoint up. Which people can already do. Granted, this means that you lose some of the top of the gunsight circle, and maybe have the very top of a couple of instruments slightly obscured by the leather padding, but that is good enough for me. And frankly, there are much bigger issues regarding visibility than this perennial winge-fest. Notably the fact that without binocular vision, pretty well every cockpit has framing which hides aircraft that would be visible to one eye in reality. Which would be another good reason to move to VR if it wasn't for the resolution issues it has. Ultimately, like it or not, this is a commercial product, created for entertainment purposes, and expecting it to model every single feature of cockpit optics down to the last detail is hopelessly unrealistic. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Overall, I'm pretty satisfied with the view and very satisfied with the AC as a whole. I just wish they had gotten it right at the outset and not had it as part of the furor in the early going. The sim is only now recovering from some of the early poor design decisions. This AC and the sim in general are really coming into form now. The fact we are arguing over a few mm of bar as opposed to throwing things at each other is testament to that fact.

[StG2_Manfred]

Well Andy, I agree with you, that this is atm not a big issue. Apart from that I admit to become angry just because of the kind of replies and feedbacks I read here. Firstly, it is absolutely not necessary to simulate refraction to simulate the view a Fw pilot had in real live. The only thing what is to be done is to change the 3D model of the inner cockpit, which was already done to some degree within a couple of days back then! and which doesn't affect the 3D model seen from the outside at all. So it is no problem at all to do that. Secondly, the people here which insulting others, just because they raise this flaw, are only trolls trying to derail the argument because they cannot accept that by correcting this issue the 190 would become better (and more realistic btw). They call people whiners, actually they are the whiners.

 

We had the same about the FM of the 190 for actually years. And believe me, I know a huge amount of German speaking plane drivers and plenty of them just went away, because of the endless and fruitless debates about such a obvious problem - which now is changed finally...

 

Again, I agree that the view is not one of the biggest problems, but it is a problem nonetheless and the feedback from some here (in the forum) is still a testimony that something here in this forum is going wrong and harming this sim. People can drown the truth within this forum but not in general. And the 190 topics are just an example for that.

 

Yes, I'm also just a German 190 wannabe pilot, not able to fly and whining therefore all the time...

[Blutaar]

Hey, i have a slightly offtopic question.

 

I read a long time ago about the offset Revi and why it is how it is, the reason was that we humans have 2 eyes but only one eye is needed for the guncross to be interpolated through the brain which combines both images to one and that a german pilot dont need to lean right, the same as with the monocle in the Apache Attack Helicopter, is this right or wrong, im really not sure?

 

I allways thought how awful it feels to lean right in Cliffs of Dover, so i really think it is used just with the right eye but with both eyes open like you uses a Red Dot sight on a Assault Rifle.

 

How is it in VR then, can you use the revi this way?

 

To not completly derail the thread, i wish that we can have a better representation from the in cockpit view in the 190, sure there are other planes suffer from bad view but i dont think it would be that different, the 109 G2 for example would still have the broad upper Bar because it is just the top cover of the Panzerglass so no refraction.

 

The P40 has nearly the same angled windshield but in my opinion it dont distort the view because of Bars, it has other problems for sure but not the view in front of the nose.

 

The Yak1b is terrible but i also dont think that refraction would do magic here, it has also not the angle like 190 or P40 so it would not be that big of a difference but im no expert and could be wrong.

 

So yeah i think the 190 suffers the most from it and even if i can live with how it is i am not a fan of the Bars and would really aprecciate a change here for the better, slightly thinner side Bars and no bottom Bar at all, that would be lovely.

 

I am a Luftwhiner!