Fw190 windscreen bar

[Venturi 449]

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 engine model of an aircraft, it is the accurate representation of its behaviour.

 

Well said

[Holtzauge 927]

If getting refraction modelled is off the table then why not simply adjust the 3d model? If I have to choose between what should be correct, the view from the cockpit or the external view I would choose the former: This is a combat sim and as such the important issue is that you get a correct view from the cockpit and if the glass fairings and rims on the external model are a tad thin then so what? Without refraction modelled you can’t have both and one will be wrong and the least damaging from a siming standpoint would be hitting the 3d model IMHO.

 

In addition please stop this Luftwhining nonsense: This is not just about the 190: This is about getting the ”office” to look like it should. So any plane with an armoured windscreen should benefit. Would be great if the developers could start with the Spitfire currently in development. Or do we want bars in that one as well?

 

Edit: Reading it again I realize I better make it clear that when I refer to "Luftwhining nonsense" I'm referring to the phenomena that whenever someone brings up something that is off on the 190 it is immediately pounced upon and brushed off as whining weather it is a valid argument or not.  

Edited May 25, 2017 by Holtzauge

[Holtzauge 927]

IRL:
 


This still is from this video. Interesting to see how the refraction allows you to see "around corners". I for sure would prefer a "correct" cockpit view over a "correct" external 3d model....

[senseispcc 275]

i am confused, what am i missing? all i see is glass? o.o

 

Not glass, plastic, perspex is plastic!  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poly(methyl_methacrylate)

[ZachariasX 2504]

 

This still is from this video. Interesting to see how the refraction allows you to see "around corners". I for sure would prefer a "correct" cockpit view over a "correct" external 3d model....

One should have two external models then for each airplane, one as seen from outside and one that is exclusively shown when sitting inside and that could be distorted as required. And make two skins per plane. But at lest you would always see "correct" planes.

 

We need ray tracing for our sim engine.  

[216th_Jordan 1283]

Sorry but I just don't see the importance of so much effort for a tiny visual effect. There is no endless budget for so expansive stuff like that.

 

You will have to accept that there are some things that are hardly simultable on pcs. (look what an impact shadow calculation alone needs) The same goes for the Il-2 or the P-40 which would profit from refraction too, so it's not just a 190 thing.

[Holtzauge 927]

One should have two external models then for each airplane, one as seen from outside and one that is exclusively shown when sitting inside and that could be distorted as required. And make two skins per plane. But at lest you would always see "correct" planes.

 

We need ray tracing for our sim engine.

 

Well that would be an even better solution but I'm still thinking that if I had to choose, I would still take a correct cockpit view from the inside with the cockpit framing smaller than IRL when viewed from the outside.

Sorry but I just don't see the importance of so much effort for a tiny visual effect. There is no endless budget for so expansive stuff like that.

 

You will have to accept that there are some things that are hardly simultable on pcs. (look what an impact shadow calculation alone needs) The same goes for the Il-2 or the P-40 which would profit from refraction too, so it's not just a 190 thing.

 

So much development effort? Doing two different models or implementing refraction maybe costly but simply "thinning out" the framing? That should not be that difficult to do surely? And yes, of course it should be done on all planes: Why not start with the Spitfire and update the others as well?

[StG2_Manfred 251]

One should have two external models then for each airplane, one as seen from outside and one that is exclusively shown when sitting inside and that could be distorted as required. And make two skins per plane. But at lest you would always see "correct" planes.

 

We need ray tracing for our sim engine.

Actually there are two 3D models. One is the outside view, one is for the inside view. And they can be changed independently. Which was done shortly after the very first introduction of the A3. The bars became thinner and the Revi position was raised a bit. So, this is absolutely doable.

 

IIRC Han said to change the horizontal bar additionally it also would be necessary to rework the cowling (seen from inside, which means we are still speaking of the inside 3D model). That sounds plausible because it then would block the new view. I also understand that with their current tight schedule there are no resources left for this. But maybe it is possible to do it now for the Spit and rework other planes later, like Holtzauge suggested.

[Holtzauge 927]

OK, good to know: I thought it was the same model both for inside and outside views which was why I suggested "compromising" the outside model to get a more realistic inside view. If it is actually two models in BoX then so much the better: Sounds like we can both have and eat our cake then.   

[gnomechompsky 17]

It's amazing that we have a 4 page thread in something that, for technical reasons, is difficult to model when there are significantly bigger things that aren't modeled for technical reasons.

 

Like:

 

The effects of forces on your body.

Force feedback.

Temperature inside the cockpit.

[SCG_Space_Ghost 1965]

It's amazing that we have a 4 page thread in something that, for technical reasons, is difficult to model when there are significantly bigger things that aren't modeled for technical reasons.

 

Like:

 

The effects of forces on your body.

Force feedback.

Temperature inside the cockpit.

 

If you've resolved the fact that effects on your body, cockpit temp or force feedback are difficult (if not impossible...) to model than why are you surprised by something as uncomplicated as refraction/resizing a 3D model..? 

[ZachariasX 2504]

 

 

Actually there are two 3D models. One is the outside view, one is for the inside view. And they can be changed independently. Which was done shortly after the very first introduction of the A3. The bars became thinner and the Revi position was raised a bit. So, this is absolutely doable.

I didn't know that. Thnx for the info. I thought this would be slghtly ove the top. But great!

[Irgendjemand 119]

OK, good to know: I thought it was the same model both for inside and outside views which was why I suggested "compromising" the outside model to get a more realistic inside view. If it is actually two models in BoX then so much the better: Sounds like we can both have and eat our cake then. 

i think its more correct to differentiate the models as "the one the pilot sees" and "the one all others see". That actually makes it clear pretty well i think. Just look at a plane from outside view. Cockpit and amatures are fa r less detailed. Not the same model the pilot sees.

 

It's amazing that we have a 4 page thread in something that, for technical reasons, is difficult to model when there are significantly bigger things that aren't modeled for technical reasons.

 

Like:

 

The effects of forces on your body.

Force feedback.

Temperature inside the cockpit.

thats the point. Its in my opinion NOT hard to get done. And also not very timeconsuming.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Irgendjemand

[-SF-Disarray 542]

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!

 

It is true that depending on how an individuals brain works things out one eye or the other provides the majority of the 'point of view' that a person 'sees.' There are all kinds of very simple tests to figure out which eye is your dominant one, I don 't know if one eye being dominant is more common though. As to how much an effect this would have on a pilot needing to move their head to make use of the gun sight, I'm not sure. The aircraft sights are precursors to modern holographic sights used on small arms and I know that those provide a relatively true point of aim regardless of what angle you are viewing the sight from, with in reasonable limits of course, and as far as I know these early aircraft sights work on the same principals and the technological advancement has been mostly in durability and miniaturization. If this is true then a pilot probably wouldn't have to move their head much at all, regardless of which eye is their dominant one.

 

How this all works out in VR I'm not 100% sure. With the images being so close together in terms of left to right offset and the relatively short distance from the viewers eyes I don't know how much this effect would have, if any. That said I don't have much experience with modern VR equipment.

[Holtzauge 927]

i think its more correct to differentiate the models as "the one the pilot sees" and "the one all others see".

 

Well if you can tell (from the cockpit view in your plane) the size of the canopy framing of other planes then you must be getting very close indeed to your wingman or opponent. Really, I think the only time you would be able to tell would be from the F2 view and even then I doubt it would be something to get your knickers in a knot about.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Holtzauge

[von_Tom 429]

Changing the internal 3D model to get an "accurate" view in 2D might make it may look very weird in VR.

 

Von Tom

Edited May 25, 2017 by von_Tom

[Holtzauge 927]

Changing the internal 3D model to get an "accurate" view in 2D might make it may look very weird in VR.

 

I think that would depend on how it was done: For example, on the Spitfire you could simply make the armoured glass and inside fairing not as thick to simulate the refraction effect. Can't see why that would look weird either using a TrackIR or VR?

 

On the 190, move the lower part of the outer fairing down to cowling level, on the sides, move the rearward edges forward making the side framing a bit thinner. Of course not saying its a slam dunk case: You would have to try it out and see how it looks from both inside and outside.

[LukeFF 6281]

Guys, bottom line, if there was a workable solution that didn't eat into their schedule, they would have implemented it by now.

[Irgendjemand 119]

Guys, bottom line, if there was a workable solution that didn't eat into their schedule, they would have implemented it by now.

I think its not that. It is a designdeciision. And IMHO a bad one.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Irgendjemand

[FuriousMeow 1079]

Actually there are two 3D models. One is the outside view, one is for the inside view. And they can be changed independently. Which was done shortly after the very first introduction of the A3. The bars became thinner and the Revi position was raised a bit. So, this is absolutely doable.

 

IIRC Han said to change the horizontal bar additionally it also would be necessary to rework the cowling (seen from inside, which means we are still speaking of the inside 3D model). That sounds plausible because it then would block the new view. I also understand that with their current tight schedule there are no resources left for this. But maybe it is possible to do it now for the Spit and rework other planes later, like Holtzauge suggested.

 

That's not true. There is only a 3D cockpit that is then placed inside the 3D model of the plane, which is the same model as viewed from external.

 

There are not two separate models for internal and external, just a more detailed 3D cockpit model.

I think its not that. It is a designdeciision. And IMHO a bad one.

Well, they've stated otherwise so doesn't matter what you think.

[SCG_Space_Ghost 1965]

I think its not that. It is a designdeciision. And IMHO a bad one.

 

I disagree... 

 

Guys, bottom line, if there was a workable solution that didn't eat into their schedule, they would have implemented it by now.

 

I think the cost of implementing a refraction shader is more expensive for the game engine/PC hardware than it is for the team and that this is more likely the reason.

[Gambit21 5381]

I think its not that. It is a designdeciision. And IMHO a bad one.

 

Is your humble opinion voiced with working knowledge of 3D modeling, shaders, resource overhead and game development in general?

Or is it one of those just flapping the jaws kind of humble opinions?

[ZachariasX 2504]

I disagree... 

 

I think the cost of implementing a refraction shader is more expensive for the game engine/PC hardware than it is for the team and that this is more likely the reason.

+1

[Pilot_Rabbit 47]

Hope there is a compromising option to amend this.

[Holtzauge 927]

Well if modelling refraction is too costly and if there is only one 3d model then there is still the option to adjust the 3d model: I think the view from the cockpit is the important aspect and in that case this could come closer to the IRL cockpit environment if armored glass in-game was made thinner: I found a picture of a Spitfire Mk Vc that I think illustrates both the problem and a possible solution: The closest armoured glass fairing shows the true glass thickness while the further shows the effects of refraction. So a possible solution would be to make the in-game 3d model as thick as the further fairing thus mimicking the refraction effect.

 

 

[unreasonable 3160]

Good picture and it does show how massively the appearance of the framing changes due to refraction.  What it also shows, however, is that the view of the nose also changes compared to a glass-less view, and making the framing thinner to match the in-cockpit view will not address this.

 

For all the talk of resources etc, I cannot help but think that this is something that should have been a higher priority to get right than mirrors. 

[Holtzauge 927]

Good picture and it does show how massively the appearance of the framing changes due to refraction.  What it also shows, however, is that the view of the nose also changes compared to a glass-less view, and making the framing thinner to match the in-cockpit view will not address this.

 

For all the talk of resources etc, I cannot help but think that this is something that should have been a higher priority to get right than mirrors. 

 

Yup, I think getting the "office" to look more like the real thing would be time well spent and it could begin with the Spitfire. On the view over the nose thing can't that be addressed by lowering the forward edge of the armour glass until you see the upper part of the cowling or as much of the cowling you would see given the effects of refraction?

[Blutaar 205]

I would still prefer the solution i earlier mentioned in this thread, just make the textures in question transparent from inside to hide the lower Bar and thin out the side Bars and leave the outside model as it is. Someone who knows 3D modeling said it is possible to make textures transparent from one side and solid from the other, with this method we could have a better in cockpit representation but without the benefiting refraction effect, better then now for sure.

[6./ZG26_5tuka 1863]

Well if modelling refraction is too costly and if there is only one 3d model then there is still the option to adjust the 3d model: I think the view from the cockpit is the important aspect and in that case this could come closer to the IRL cockpit environment if armored glass in-game was made thinner: I found a picture of a Spitfire Mk Vc that I think illustrates both the problem and a possible solution: The closest armoured glass fairing shows the true glass thickness while the further shows the effects of refraction. So a possible solution would be to make the in-game 3d model as thick as the further fairing thus mimicking the refraction effect.

Not nsessecary since they're infact 2 models (one cockpit model completed with parts of the external aircraft and the external aircraft with low quality cockpit). Devs have clearly shown that in their development phase:

 

 

The real issue was the ammount of time and ressrouces needed to reshape the cowling only for the internal view 3d model.

[unreasonable 3160]

Yup, I think getting the "office" to look more like the real thing would be time well spent and it could begin with the Spitfire. On the view over the nose thing can't that be addressed by lowering the forward edge of the armour glass until you see the upper part of the cowling or as much of the cowling you would see given the effects of refraction?

 

Effectively the eye position is higher in respect to everything outside the cockpit compared to it's "real" position inside. So you can see what the pilot would see forwards by moving the eye position up a few cm: but then the sight is in the wrong place: and what is more the view of the side bars is still unchanged.

 

All too difficult to deal with.     I think just make the bars thinner as per your suggestion the only practical solution in the absence of refraction.

Edited May 26, 2017 by unreasonable

[Holtzauge 927]

Guys, there seems to be many different ideas about if there are one or two models in-game but even so changing the dimensions to make the fairing thinner can't be that difficult: Years since I did mechanical design myself at a CAD terminal but changing a dimension as in a thickness by an "extrude" command is not exactly rocket science....

 

@unresonable: Yes, getting this totally right is probably difficult but as you say, thinning out the fairing is a step in the right direction and would be a practical solution.

 

@Ishtaru: Sure, if making things transparent is feasible then why not? Whatever improves the situation and if we can have both a correct external and internal model then so much the better. My only reason for suggesting the changed 3d dimensions is because that works in any scenario but of course your suggestion is better if it can be implemented without too much effort.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Holtzauge

[HagarTheHorrible 1111]

Gone on throw us a bone here, I asked before, to no reply, why not use the same tech as the mirrors to provide a more correct view through the windscreen armour ?

 

I don't really give a monkeys about the bar, just asking, from a technical stand point.

[Holtzauge 927]

Whatever works Hagar, it that's the solution I'm all for it: Thing is IIRC then the view out of the Spitfire Mk V in the "old" IL-2 was horrible due to the armoured glass and if that view could be strangled in the cradle I'm all for it!   

[6./ZG26_5tuka 1863]

Gone on throw us a bone here, I asked before, to no reply, why not use the same tech as the mirrors to provide a more correct view through the windscreen armour ?

 

I don't really give a monkeys about the bar, just asking, from a technical stand point.

The PiP solution is not ideal since it has also limitations most noticeably on the performence side. While I'm not too familiar with the current mirror tech earlier games use quality presets to reduce the framerate and resolution of PiP mirrors as well as hiding objects scenery such as vegitation or other things. With such limitations flying the aircraft on a weak PC might become very troublesome if not impossible and very demanding on a high end machine.

 

From a performence standpoint the 3d apporach is way more favourable and without any of the limitations of said technology.

 

Guys, there seems to be many different ideas about if there are one or two models in-game but even so changing the dimensions to make the fairing thinner can't be that difficult:

I'm sure we can pretty much agree on 2 models. The same method is widely deployed by other flight games / sims and there's really no secret about it.

[Irgendjemand 119]

Is your humble opinion voiced with working knowledge of 3D modeling, shaders, resource overhead and game development in general?

Or is it one of those just flapping the jaws kind of humble opinions?

Like mentioned. I am a 3D artist. I dont have knowledge on shaders resource overhead or gamedevelopment - just like you since if you had youd know those thigns are IRRELEVANT when it comes to changing the geometry of a frikkin BAR:P

I dont care it if gets changed or not, on any plane. So relax guys LOL

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by Irgendjemand

[Gambit21 5381]

Like mentioned. I am a 3D artist. I dont have knowledge on shaders resource overhead or gamedevelopment -

 

So am I, and I also know that if a fix was this easy it would have been done already.

[Irgendjemand 119]

So am I, and I also know that if a fix was this easy it would have been done already.

lets just agree we would apprechiate if it was done one day but that it defionately is nothing to be considered high priority.

Peace!

[6./ZG26_Custard 1823]

Found the thread from back in 2014 with a very detailed report that I/JG27_Nemesis complied. Han replied around post #116

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/9152-ultimate-fw190-photo-evidence-thread/page-3

 

Personally, I'm happy with the solution we currently have

[1PL-Husar-1Esk 1253]

Found the thread from back in 2014 with a very detailed report that I/JG27_Nemesis complied. Han replied around post #116

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/9152-ultimate-fw190-photo-evidence-thread/page-3

 

Personally, I'm happy with the solution we currently have

If mirrors tech was not enough efficient to implement back then as Han explained and after two years after of game engine upgrades we have them, maybe refraction without severe performance hit is now in range to?

Edited May 26, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[JG7_RudeRaptor 17]

For all who wants to understand this problem better:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCGsyjt5ANU

 

Bloody Brilliant !

At least someone  got research to back himself up.... 

The bar isn't an issue in VR.

 

Von Tom

 

Is this true? 

Screen shot maybe ?