Different implementation of offset Luftwaffe gun sights

[Matze81]

There was an interesting thread in the CloD forum concerning the way the offset Luftwaffe Revi gun sights are commonly implemented in flight sims and how the way, the reticle actually appears ingame, could (maybe should) be adjusted, in order to be closer to reality.

 

JG52Krupi created this thread back then, referring to a post made by Lixma.

Krupi you're around here. I hope you didn't bring this topic up already, buddy (nor changed your mind on this ). Lixma I haven't seen on this new forum.

 

Anyways, here's Lixma's picture that shows a part of a Fw-190 schematic.

 

 

The center of the gun sight is 40mm offset to the right of the center, meaning it's pretty much right in front of the pilots right eye.

 

Taking that into consideration "gynoflyer" posted an adjusted CloD screenshot, that shows a possibly more realistic reticle position.

 

 

I haven't flown aircraft, that didn't have the sight or the HUD centered, so I can't speak from experience, but IF the facts and the conclusions are sound, then it's something the devs might wanna look into for BoS.

 

Link to the original 1C forum thread created by Krupi: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=33798&highlight=sight

[gavagai]

Great post.  I've always wondered why they would put the gunsight in such an inconvenient place.  Apparently, they didn't.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

Interesting! This makes a whole lot more sense than the position we see in old IL2!

[Matze81]

I would really love to see something like this implemented in the upcoming BoS, if it is indeed a more realistic representation of what the Luftwaffe pilots really saw back then.

 

Also, like many of you guys, I use TrackIR and it's okay to aim by leaning a bit to the right, but again, if the centered reticle is more realistic, I'm all for it, especially considering the added "bonus" of making it a tad more comfortable to aim in Luftwaffe fighters!

[Furio]

I???

[gavagai]

Furio,

 

I think you misunderstand.  With the default view it is even worse!

Edited December 31, 2012 by gavagai

[Furio]

Furio,

 

I think you misunderstand.  With the default view it is even worse!

 

It???

[Matze81]

In any case, this is my opinion.

 

It's all good mate, as long as we talk about it normally. Which we do, I think.

 

I rarely fly LW types and respect wishes of people who do.

 

Please understand, I do not want this thread to be perceived as "a Luftwaffe boy is whining, because his gun sight is not centered".

It's really just about realism, with a possible side effect (more comfortable aiming).

 

I'm no expert in optics or anything, but when I first read about this in the "old" forum, I thought and still think it makes sense.

It could be a similar effect, like when using the Red Dot sight on a G36 rifle for example. The right (or left) eye is behind the sight and you are supposed to keep your other eye open when aiming. You place the red dot on the target and you are obviously still aiming down straight, although the brain processes information from both eyes, one of which is off center. For the Revi sight something similar might apply. I don't know.

 

If some of you guys have more insight or knowledge on this, please share it.

 

But in the end it's real simple. If the whole thing is incorrect, then the developers should program the gun sight the way it was in IL-2 and CloD. If there's some truth to it (after the developers found the time to look into it), then they'll probably implement it differently. If it's feasible, of course.

[Original_Uwe]

Eh, I never really saw a reason to change anything. If it isn't broke don't fix it right?

sadly I don't know any WW2 jagdflieger, and short of asking them I doubt well find a definitive answer to this issue.

[Matze81]

If it isn't broke don't fix it right?

 

Ain't that the truth, but were there any Revi gun sights in RoF (I don't know, I just have the demo)? If not, then there's nothing really there to break, since they have to write the gun sight code for BoS from scratch anyways. Yes, maybe with the help and expertise of former CloD programmers (some of them joined the BoS team, right?), but it's a new project nonetheless.

 

sadly I don't know any WW2 jagdflieger, and short of asking them I doubt well find a definitive answer to this issue.

 

I don't know any WW2 Jagdflieger either, but your comment gave me the idea to try and get in touch with an old buddy and colleague of mine, whose grandfather was a Ju-88 pilot in the war. My buddy often told me, that when his grandfather was stationed in France, they had a Fw-190 availabe to them, which they would fly every now and then (not in the fighter role, but as "Verbindungsflugzeug", he said). I doubt that they ever spoke about specifics, like the Revi, but it can't hurt to ask. Also other friends and colleagues are quite knowledgeable, when it comes down to WW2 aircraft. Maybe they read something about the matter.

[AndyJWest]

but were there any Revi gun sights in RoF...?

Yup - or reflector sights at least, as field mods for German aircraft - some of questionable historical authenticity, though the Germans were testing them by 1918. The Entente had Aldis and Le-Chretien collimator sights, which functioned in a similar way. And they were offset, more often than not, though probably more to accommodate the clutter in front than for other reasons. Fortunately, RoF is fairly flexible with setting the head position, and it is simple enough to move it the short distance required to suit. I can't see why BoS shouldn't be able to use the same system - though it will need to limit the range of movement inside the cockpit more than RoF does with open-cockpit aircraft.

[gavagai]

The Rise of Flight viewing system actually hails from Aces High.  So long as BoS retains it, it will be a synch to adjust the view for proper shooting.

[Matt]

And they were offset, more often than not, though probably more to accommodate the clutter in front than for other reasons.

 

 

And so that it was right infront (or atleast almost alligned to) one of the pilots eyes. And not his forhead. Makes no real sense to place something like the Aldis right in the middle, unless you really have to put it there because of the planes struts or wires getting in the way.

 

With ROFs viewing system (which most likely will be used in BOS aswell), i don't see a huge problem with the "usual" representation, which would require you to lean over the Revi. Atleast in ROF you can save the default view, so there's no need for leaning, if you don't want to. But still, i would like the implementation of the OP as an option.

[EAF_Paf]

Yes, you can lean your head with 6DOF, but the original post is about not having to lean your head to the right side.

The sight is offset but you still see the reticle in the center with both eyes open, like with using the red-dot for example on the G36 that I fired in the army.

I doubt its possible to simulate this convincing though, but it would be great.

 

Edit: Is there any game that does this right? I can't think of any. Even Arma has it wrong, no?

Edited January 2, 2013 by paf

[Novotny]

Kudos to Matze81.  A well considered, thoughtful post that makes polite suggestions and insults nobody.  If only this was the norm.

[Matze81]

But still, i would like the implementation of the OP as an option.

 

I agree. I'm sure that would make most people happy. Me included!

 

Yes, you can lean your head with 6DOF, but the original post is about not having to lean your head to the right side.

The sight is offset but you still see the reticle in the center with both eyes open, like with using the red-dot for example on the G36 that I fired in the army.

I doubt its possible to simulate this convincing though, but it would be great.

 

Thanks paf, that's exactly what I mean. I also felt there seems to be some confusion about what exactly I'm suggesting.

You're right, it might not be possible to simulate convincingly, but I hope the devs consider it and who knows,  maybe they're able to pull it off after all.

 

Kudos to Matze81.  A well considered, thoughtful post that makes polite suggestions and insults nobody.  If only this was the norm.

 

Thank you, Novotny. Makes me happy that you see it that way! I really appreciate it!

It helps of course when the responses are "non-hostile", even when people don't agree with the original suggestion. And that's absolutely the case in this thread!

Thanks guys!

Edited January 2, 2013 by Matze81

[Matt]

With the way the gunsights work in ROF, this would be technically possible to do. Quite simple actually.

 

 

Yes, you can lean your head with 6DOF, but the original post is about not having to lean your head to the right side.

I'm aware of that. And there is no way to "do this right" without an actual 3D view. Matzes way is closer in the way that your head stays centered and you can still see the reticle. So it's (arguably) "more" correct, but i wouldn't call it right. It's a good compromise. To get it right, you would need to implement a 3D viewing system that simulates this correctly and wear 3D glasses, which i doubt that many people are doing right now.

[Matze81]

And there is no way to "do this right" without an actual 3D view. To get it right, you would need to implement a 3D viewing system that simulates this correctly and wear 3D glasses, which i doubt that many people are doing right now.

 

Something similar was mentioned back in the old thread. It's probably my limited technical understanding, but why wouldn't it be possible?

 

I don't want to reference other games all the time, because after all, the main focus has to be on BoS, but just for arguments sake take CloD for example:

When you move the head to the right with TrackIR or whatever, then the game processes this information, "realizes" that the head is in front of the gun sight and shows a full reticle. That's how we know it, right?

 

Now, would it not be possible to program the game in a way that when the view is centered, the game now "realizes" that the head is centered, therefore in a Bf-109 or Fw-190 (since the "virtual" right eye is in front of the gun sight) the player gets a full centered reticle. Then when we lean to the left for example, the reticle starts getting cut off, since the right eye moves away from the gun sight.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm can't say you're incorrect. Maybe I'm overlooking or missing something, but I don't see why game developers would be able to simulate 3D environments, cockpits, Head Up Displays and what not convincingly on a 2D Monitor, but not be able to implement this, without the use of 3D glasses. To me, it looks like it should be possible.

[LukeFF]

Reflector sights are indeed in ROF, as Andy mentions up above. There's at least one WWI-era photo out there showing a Fokker Dr.I with such a sight fitted. Anyways, this is what it looks like in ROF with a reflector sight:

 

 

 

 

 

[RoboticPope]

Would it not be a bit odd to have one thing in the cockpit simulated 3D but the rest of the cockpit still 2D.  IMO if you're are going to simulate 3D in 2D you'd need to do the whole cockpit including alternating transparent canopy frames.

Edited January 6, 2013 by RoboticPope

[Matze81]

@LukeFF

Thanks for the Screenshots. Since they have Revi's in ROF already, I think there's a good chance the devs will probably stick to the normal presentation of the reticle as we know it (Assumption only. Not intended as whining! )

 

Would it not be a bit odd to have one thing in the cockpit simulated 3D but the rest of the cockpit still 2D.  IMO if you're are going to simulate 3D in 2D you'd need to do the whole cockpit including alternating transparent canopy frames.

 

I do see your point. Just looking at the pure facts, it might be inconsequent to simulate one thing based on how the human vision works and not apply that to anything else the player sees ingame.

The reason why I do not think that it would be odd to focus on that "one thing" (the reticle position) is that this particular "one thing" is an integral part of simulating aerial combat. I mean of course there lots more to aerial combat, but in the end it all comes down to propper aiming, before pulling the trigger. That's why I wouldn't mind having the reticle position simulated as originally suggested, even if other effects of human stereoscopic vision are not implemented.

[Fishbreath]

It could be a similar effect, like when using the Red Dot sight on a G36 rifle for example. The right (or left) eye is behind the sight and you are supposed to keep your other eye open when aiming. You place the red dot on the target and you are obviously still aiming down straight, although the brain processes information from both eyes, one of which is off center. For the Revi sight something similar might apply. I don't know.

That's (probably) exactly what was up with the offset Luftwaffe sights, but it would be impossible to do convincingly on a monitor???

[Matze81]

... it would be impossible to do convincingly on a monitor ...

 

I can't say you're wrong, but I really hope you are!   No offense intended, mate!

 

For reasons already layed out, it seems doable to me. At least to some degree.

I might not be completely objective/impartial due to the fact that ever since I first read about it, I hoped that the centered reticle would be implemented (originally in CloD and now in BoS of course), but I try to stay open minded.

 

Maybe a few months down the road, when the game starts taking shape, the devs might post something in our threads, telling us what they think about the suggestions and whether or not any of 'em actually make it into the game.

 

I keep my fingers crossed.

[Fishbreath]

The problem is simply that most people don't have a way to see two slightly-different views on their monitor, and (here's my turn to say no offense ) the proposed solution in the first post is more wrong than the current model (the one in flight sims to date)???

[gavagai]

Can you explain?  Most of us are right-eye dominant, and experience little change in perspective when we close our left eye.

Edited January 18, 2013 by gavagai

[Matze81]

The problem is simply that most people don't have a way to see two slightly-different views on their monitor, and (here's my turn to say no offense )

 

Good one, mate!    I really do try to stay open minded though!

 

The current model is exactly what a Luftwaffe pilot would have seen if he were to close his left eye. The problem is a fundamental one of mapping binocular vision into a medium with only one point of view. This isn't how you look through a red dot sight (which is the exact same principle):

 

 

But it's the only way you can take a picture of one. It's certainly much nearer the way you see through a red dot sight, though, than it would be to move the dot to the left onto the tube. There's definitely a real solution to the problem, but I'm afraid it's more along the lines of the Oculus Rift than just moving the reticle over.

 

I agree. That's the reason why they implemented red dot sights for first person shooters and Revi's for flight sims the way they did so far. I don't think there's anything wrong with the quoted part above.

 

Help me out with this one though:

 

... the proposed solution in the first post is more wrong than the current model (the one in flight sims to date) ...

 

Dude, I'm not trying to be a smart@$$ and it might just be my limited mental capabilities (hope not), that won't let me see beyond this, but look:

It seems you agree with the theory that the Luftwaffe pilots aimed with both eyes open and without leaning the head to the right (correct me, if you do not). So if you have a target flying straight and level directly ahead of you, where does the reticle have to be, in order to properly aim at the target? I'd say in the middle. Or am I missing something?

 

But there's another thing, why I do think this current implementation works better overall for shooters than it does for flight sims. What do they do in shooters? They put the rifle directly centered in front of your body, when you aim with the red dot sight (like in your picture). Obviously that's not the rifle position in real life. But doing so, is a good game design decission, because the target, the sight and "your" vertical axis are in line, making it easy to move, turn and aim at the same time.

For offset sights in flight sims it's a little different. When you lean your head to the right, the target and the sight are in line, but the longitudinal and vertical turn axis around which the aircraft moves are left of "you" or left of the line you are looking down, making it more challenging to aim while maneuvering, compared to having a centered reticle / gun sight.

 

I understand the guys, who say: "Why change it? It's been working fine for more than a decade / We're used to it / It's not broken, don't fix it", I'm used to it myself (been playing IL-2 since 2001, like a lot of you too). But unless you actually WANT to lean to the right while aiming, you'd still benefit from a centered reticle implementation even if you don't see a need for it.

[Fishbreath]

Can you explain?  Most of us are right-eye dominant, and experience little change in perspective when we close our left eye.

 

Right--so you would see the reticle centered in the reflector with your left eye open or closed. You would lose some of your peripheral vision, though, and you would end up seeing more of the right side of the cockpit than the left, just as in the shifted perspective mode all sims to date have done. The feel of being centered in the cockpit and still behind the offset gunsight comes from having the left eye's field of view.

 

Dude, I'm not trying to be a smart@$$ and it might just be my limited mental capabilities (hope not), that won't let me see beyond this, but look:

It seems you agree with the theory that the Luftwaffe pilots aimed with both eyes open and without leaning the head to the right (correct me, if you do not). So if you have a target flying straight and level directly ahead of you, where does the reticle have to be, in order to properly aim at the target? I'd say in the middle. Or am I missing something?

 

I agree with you on the both eyes open and no head lean, but the reticle doesn't have to be in the middle. Even if it's pointing dead ahead, it would only ever be about an inch and a half off (the 40mm it's offset from the centerline), and I suspect that the Luftwaffe armorers would move the reticle so that it pointed right on at gun convergence range. Head position relative to the reticle only matters a very small amount, because the reticle is projected at an apparent distance of very far (I've seen the figure of 500 yards quoted), thanks to the collimator, and parallax error for an inch or two of head movement at 500 yards is negligible, especially for aircraft gunnery. In short, my view is accuracy (that is to say, making it look how a pilot would have seen it) rather than precision (making it feel like a pilot would have seen it).

 

I think we're sort of talking past each other--I think it's more important that the appearance be correct. That is, the Luftwaffe pilot would have seen the reticle centered in the reflector pane, it would have been pointed where his guns were pointed, and he wouldn't have had to lean his head. I'm willing to sacrifice a little bit of practicality and be required to lean, because the screenshot in the first post is not physically possible--assuming that the monoscopic viewpoint we get with a two-dimensional monitor is the viewpoint from the pilot's dominant eye (and having a two-dimensional monitor does limit us to picking an eye), once the reticle reaches the edge of the reflector pane, it simply doesn't appear anymore.

 

It seems to me that your position is that gameplay and the feel of the thing are more important than the exact appearance, which is a position I can respect (though I don't agree with it). It seems to me that you'd prefer to have a cockpit that works with the head centered, one which more precisely conveys the feel of an offset gunsight even if it isn't an accurate view of one.

 

I still feel like I'm communicating my position badly, so let me try a real-world experiment. I went over and got my red dot sight (which operates on exactly the same principle as a WWII reflector-collimator gunsight) out, then rested it on top of my monitor, about an inch and a half to the right of the monitor's centerline (a la a Luftwaffe sight). I lined up my nose so that my head was horizontally centered on the monitor, then I tried all the possibilities for eyes open/closed:

• With only my right eye open, I see the dot centered in the sight tube. My head is centered compared to the monitor, but my perspective feels like it's shifted to the right a little bit (although it's not). I'm right-eye dominant, so as gavagai said, I didn't experience any actual perspective change when I closed my left eye, but I had a great deal of difficulty getting my head centered relative to the monitor and not my right eye.
• With only my left eye open, I see the outside of the sight's tube and no dot (I'm outside of the light path from the sight).
• With both eyes open, I see those two images superimposed: the illuminated dot in the center of the sight tube, and the sight's top and left knobs in double-vision (when I look at the wall behind them).

I don't know if the original flight sim developers gave it this much thought, but in my just-now-developed experience, the perspective we're given is the right-eye perspective of a right-eye dominant pilot. I suspect that, were I flying a real Spitfire (for instance), my head would naturally move so as to put my right eye directly behind the reflector pane. This would result in my leaning, actually, slightly to the left. If I were flying a real Bf 109, my head would naturally move so as to put my right eye directly behind the offset gunsight. This would result in my head being centered, but visually (that is, not referenced against their position in the cockpit), the gunsights would be absolutely identical--a reticle centered in the reflector pane, because that's the view my dominant eye sees, and then a part of the reflector pane repeated in double vision (for a right-eye dominant person, the doubled portion would appear further to the right).

 

But there's another thing, why I do think this current implementation works better overall for shooters than it does for flight sims. What do they do in shooters? They put the rifle directly centered in front of your body, when you aim with the red dot sight (like in your picture). Obviously that's not the rifle position in real life. But doing so, is a good game design decission, because the target, the sight and "your" vertical axis are in line, making it easy to move, turn and aim at the same time.

For offset sights in flight sims it's a little different. When you lean your head to the right, the target and the sight are in line, but the longitudinal and vertical turn axis around which the aircraft moves are left of "you" or left of the line you are looking down, making it more challenging to aim while maneuvering, compared to having a centered reticle / gun sight.

 

I honestly don't find that to be the case at all, just like I don't find driving a car off to one side to be much of a difficulty. It's much more important that your default view is level with the wings and pointed dead ahead than it is to be exactly centered in the cockpit in terms of translation--this is obviously so, because pilots were of differing heights.

 

I understand the guys, who say: "Why change it? It's been working fine for more than a decade / We're used to it / It's not broken, don't fix it", I'm used to it myself (been playing IL-2 since 2001, like a lot of you too). But unless you actually WANT to lean to the right while aiming, you'd still benefit from a centered reticle implementation even if you don't see a need for it.

 

I definitely don't think it's ideal, and it is broken as it's been done before, in the sense that no two-dimensional image can ever properly represent a binocular-vision three-dimensional scene. On the other hand, a reticle that appears to be off of the reflector pane would utterly wreck my sense of immersion, even if it allows me a centered head position that is, in a different way, more realistic.

[Matze81]

Nice post! I like the experiment. I was most interested in how it looks like with both eyes open. Thanks for that.

The things you said make sense in my opinion. Maybe I see some minor stuff differently, but no reason to nit pick.

 

It seems to me that your position is that gameplay and the feel of the thing are more important than the exact appearance, which is a position I can respect (though I don't agree with it). It seems to me that you'd prefer to have a cockpit that works with the head centered, one which more precisely conveys the feel of an offset gunsight even if it isn't an accurate view of one.

 

All in all, I think that's probably a valid analysis.

 

Maybe they'll incorporate something like I suggested as switchable option, although I fear most server admins would only allow the "old school" aiming. Well, in 2014 I'll know.

[Fishbreath]

I have no objections to more options. Who knows? I might even like it, although I'm so used to all the instruments being slightly further to the left I might find it a bit strange.

[AX2]

I found this   

 

REVI

 

 

 

REVI in Action, Cockpit Cam, you always see the Gunsights

 

 

Left Side and you can see the gun sight   

 

 

 

 

 

And upper the Nose

Edited January 21, 2013 by Mustang

[AX2]

Why The gunsight are aligned to the right?

 

If you have torque, Your body is always pushed slightly to the Right. (Like in BF 109 an FW 190 )          (And to the Left for VVS Planes )

And....If you turn Better at left (Like in BF 109 or FW 190), then your body go to right,

 

In tight turns You must have to do a lot of strength, to keep your body and head aligned with the center of the cockpit. (if the Gunsight is in the middle)

But

If the the gunsight is in the right... then your body and sight  are aligned naturally  with the gunsight.

 

My English is bad

But I hope you understand

Edited January 21, 2013 by Mustang

[VeryOldMan]

Can you explain?  Most of us are right-eye dominant, and experience little change in perspective when we close our left eye.

 And is even more confusing for someone left eye dominant like me...

[Caudron431]

Thank you Matze for the very intersting post, it is pretty convincing!

 

What would be the consequence of your arguments for the P47 razorback gunsight positonning? I'm not 100% sure but i think P47 razorbacks had their gunsight slightly to the right too, to avoid the windshield vetical metal frame...

[Matze81]

@ Mustang

Thanks for the videos. Unfortunately pictures and videos don't show for sure how the reticle appeared to a pilot due to his stereoscopic vision.

But I haven't had watched those videos before, so I thought they were interesting nonetheless!

(Btw I'm obviously not a native speaker myself, but your English is fine, I think)

 

 

Thank you Matze for the very intersting post, it is pretty convincing!

 

What would be the consequence of your arguments for the P47 razorback gunsight positonning? I'm not 100% sure but i think P47 razorbacks had their gunsight slightly to the right too, to avoid the windshield vetical metal frame...

 

Thanks mate!

 

Unfortunately I can't find any concrete evidence, how the Luftwaffe pilots really aimed back then. I went through a bunch of original Luftwaffe publications concerning aircraft weapons, aiming techniques and procedures, but the only thing I found, which is related to this issue, was in an english translation of the german "D.(Luft) 5000/1 - Ziel- und Schie????regeln, Teil 1: Starre Bordwaffen". (English translation: "LUFTWAFFE GUNNERY PRIMER: AERIAL FIXED WEAPONS". If anybody could provide a link to the german Original, I'd appreciate it, because I can't be certain, whether or not the translated version I found is complete or correct for that matter.)

 

What I found was the following:

 

C. Gun Sight

...

You can move your head slightly from side to side or forward and back without loosing the line of sight.

You can see sight and a target with both eyes open. Field of vision is large and, depth perception can be maintained.

...

 

I know, nothing revolutionary! There's a lot of enthusiats here in this forum, who are probably aware of this publication anyways, so nothing new here. But that's the only thing I found.

 

Concerning the P-47 Razorback, it makes sense to me, that they moved the sight due to the windshield framing. I assume they had to lean to the right while aiming in order to look past the centered metal frame and be able to place the reticle over the target (direct line of sight between pilot eyes, reticle and target without obstruction).

Edited February 14, 2013 by Matze81

[Caudron431]

Hi Matze,

 

Thanks for answering. I just found a site with some nice pictures, and thought maybe these guys could help in your research (though their topic was started ages ago)...

 

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=110486.0

[johnny_phate]

I was thinking about this after playing War Thunder (never played IL2) and I found this thread when i was looking for answer why german sights were offset. Im former military so i have experience using modern day red dot sights. Wasnt the reason for offset sight fact that Bf 109s had smaller cockpit so sights would have been too close to pilot head to be centered? I think that screenshot is exactly the way how pilots had percieved sights. 

Edited April 4, 2013 by johnny_phate

[Bearcat]

So I think the bottom line to what the OP is saying is that the sights were offset but in IL2 at least they are offset a bit too far to the right ... almost as if they were more in line with just beyond hismright ear as opposed to inline with his right eye.

[Matze81]

I was thinking about this after playing War Thunder (never played IL2) and I found this thread when i was looking for answer why german sights were offset. Im former military so i have experience using modern day red dot sights. Wasnt the reason for offset sight fact that Bf 109s had smaller cockpit so sights would have been too close to pilot head to be centered? I think that screenshot is exactly the way how pilots had percieved sights. 

 

I ran a lot of Google searches on why the german gun sights were offset, but I haven't found any answer yet, that would have been 100% conclusive.

So, maybe the limited cockpit space was a contributing factor, why they moved the gun sight to the right in the 109, but since they moved it only a few centimeters away from the center and therefore basically keeping it right in the pilots face maybe it wasn't. Also, cockpit space was possibly a bit less of an issue in the 190 or the 262 for example, but still the gun sights were offset. Hard to say!

 

So I think the bottom line to what the OP is saying is that the sights were offset but in IL2 at least they are offset a bit too far to the right ... almost as if they were more in line with just beyond hismright ear as opposed to inline with his right eye.

 

That's not quite what I was trying to say Bearcat.

 

I'm sure the devs did their homework and modeled the cockpits very accurately. What was theorized in the old thread, was the following:

Given the fact that the gun sight was pretty much exactly in front of the pilot's right eye, maybe the in-game representation of the reticle position (only) should be re-evaluated.

Why? Because due to the human stereoscopic vision, the combination / merging of what the right eye (reticle) and what the left eye (looks past the sight) sees, could result in real life view, that possibly resembles something like what we see on that screenshot from my initial post.

 

But as you can see, I used a lot of words like "theorized", "could", "should", "possibly" etc. It's an idea (one, which I can't take credit for!)! When I first read about it, I thought it was quite reasonable and convincing. Some people feel the same way, others don't.

 

There was some good discussion in this thread about the whole thing, me thinks. Both, from guys who agree, as well as from others who disagree or question the possibility of a 2D implementation.

 

I still think it's worth being closer evaluated by the devs.

[12.DD_Agost]

    I think its beyond question, that it was possible to aim with both eyes or just with the right eye with the offset german REVIs. IMHO if the REVI is close to your eyes (like in german airplanes usually) it is more tiring to the eyes to aim with both eyes open (if you focus on the reticle then you can't see the target as clearly and if you focus on the target you have the blurred and slightly doubled image of the reticle)  Just as Johhny_Phate writes:

 

I was thinking about this after playing War Thunder (never played IL2) and I found this thread when i was looking for answer why german sights were offset. Im former military so i have experience using modern day red dot sights. Wasnt the reason for offset sight fact that Bf 109s had smaller cockpit so sights would have been too close to pilot head to be centered? I think that screenshot is exactly the way how pilots had percieved sights. 

 

 Maybe there was a further reason to offset the gunsight in line with the right eye (as most of us do when aiming a rifle for example). If your REVI is not working (whatever reason), you have to use the iron sights, which are aligned in line with your right eye, so you don't have to move your head out of the center to aim properly which would be the case with centered gunsights. Just my 5 cents...

[Matze81]

Maybe there was a further reason to offset the gunsight in line with the right eye (as most of us do when aiming a rifle for example). If your REVI is not working (whatever reason), you have to use the iron sights, which are aligned in line with your right eye, so you don't have to move your head out of the center to aim properly which would be the case with centered gunsights. Just my 5 cents...

 

I have to admit I wasn't aware the 109 had a back up iron sight. So yes, if it did then it's possible, that it was an contributing factor.

 

To tell you the truth, it's quite frustrating, not being able to find a definitive answer! There might be a real simple reason why they offset the REVI and chances are, that it's one of the things (or a combination of some of them), that were already brought up in this thread.

 

But nobody knows for sure and that's what makes it a bit frustrating.