Jump to content
Uriah

Armored glass vs. Bubble canopy

Recommended Posts

I am wondering how helpful having armored glass as opposed to having a bubble canopy or maybe just a less obstructed view would be.

Here is a pic of the armored glass on a 109.

image.png.73c835202d80b2b143e806e017e97de0.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, one is armored, and one is not. It's not exactly hard to figure out. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer a better view much more than a negligble increase in protection. Plus, have you ever noticed your pilot being injured besides by fire? I dont think I have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pegg00 said:

I prefer a better view much more than a negligble increase in protection. Plus, have you ever noticed your pilot being injured besides by fire? I dont think I have.

it happens, but rather rarely.

 

you guys have to consider these concepts in reality, not just ingame. psychologically, an armoured front glass panel adds quite a bit of confidence for pilots when attacking enemy bombers and alike

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pegg00 said:

I prefer a better view much more than a negligble increase in protection. Plus, have you ever noticed your pilot being injured besides by fire? I dont think I have.

I wonder whether you find that protection still negligible when you would be turning into the fire of a rear gunner’s MG17. Armored glass is the difference between a bullet bouncing off your windscreen or bouncing off the mounting plate of your headrest.

 

 

10 minutes ago, EpeeNoire said:

it happens, but rather rarely.

In the real world, there are many other problems that can hit your face than just bullets.

 

Regarding bullets, a (real) fighter plane gets shot at from tha back orthe front in 99% of all occasions (personal, true statistics). This is where you put your armor. Putting more armor puts in too much weight, something you only do when you know you‘ll be shot at in oblique angles and you don‘t require too much maneuvrability, namely ground attack.

 

Seeing the other first trumps everything in a sim, hence „creature discomfort“ in a I-16 is irrelevant as long as you havethe view.

 

Also, in a sim you only discriminate between shot down or victory. You do not care whether you look like the elephant man once the surgeons did their job getting all the shrapnel out of you.

 

There is little in life that you would value more in life than an armored windscreen if you were being sent in actual combat.

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand the first I-16's had full Cockpits but on the requesto of Pilot's they changed it back to being open in later Models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sarpalaxan said:

On the other hand the first I-16's had full Cockpits but on the requesto of Pilot's they changed it back to being open in later Models.

Maybe they were „full enough“ to make for a significant reduction for looking outside.

 

Besides, in the 30‘s the pilot had to have the head out in the air. Pilots are a conservative crowd. Perspex canopys were terrible compared what you have today. Especiallyin the birdcage layout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Russian Pilot is never "ful enough" He can always drink more Vodka. But you are propably right. My first thought was they would prefere an easyer escape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not hard to image why pilot's disliked the early I-16 canopy.

 

Image result for i-16 early

Related image

Image result for I-16 Type 4

 

Even for 109 standard's that looks extremely cramped. 

 

Grt M

Edited by I./ZG1_Dutchvdm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been killed countless times by terminator T-1000 gunners in legacy IL-2 1946 series with a single bullet throgh my windscreen (and virtual forehead). This irreversibly cemented the preference for armored windscreen whenever facing aircraft with gunners in my mind.

 

Still, I'm afraid I don't understand the question - armoured windscreen and bubble canopy are not mutually excluding, you can have both.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd take a bubble canopy any day, besides most bubble canopy aircraft I fly have armored glass as well, P-47, P-51, etc.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Uriah said:

I am wondering how helpful having armored glass as opposed to having a bubble canopy or maybe just a less obstructed view would be.

Here is a pic of the armored glass on a 109.

image.png.73c835202d80b2b143e806e017e97de0.png

 

OP, rather than a bubble canopy do you mean why didn't fighters have a curved front windscreen rather than the flat armored glass? When Vickers-Supermarine were working on a the bubble canopy for the Spitfire they also experimented with a curved/low-drag windscreen but they found that it caused image distortion which effected aiming accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2018 at 1:38 PM, I./ZG1_Dutchvdm said:

It's not hard to image why pilot's disliked the early I-16 canopy.

 

Image result for i-16 early

Related image

Image result for I-16 Type 4

 

Even for 109 standard's that looks extremely cramped. 

 

Grt M

 

If I can't see an enemy behind me then there is none! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, HBPencil said:

OP, rather than a bubble canopy do you mean why didn't fighters have a curved front windscreen rather than the flat armored glass? When Vickers-Supermarine were working on a the bubble canopy for the Spitfire they also experimented with a curved/low-drag windscreen but they found that it caused image distortion which effected aiming accuracy.

 

Didn't PR Spits have a curved front windscreen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

Didn't PR Spits have a curved front windscreen?

Yes, most of them did but they didn't have to worry about aiming any guns either ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assumed that the curved bubble canopy would not have any 'armor' glass to it.  I was wondering if a fighter pilot would prefer the better view from a curved canopy as opposed to the protection given by the armor glass.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's obviously a reason that the various air forces wanted bullet proof glass windshields. Early versions of fighters like the P-38 and P-47 had them fitted inside the cockpit, behind the curved windscreen. So you had, essentially, two windscreens in front of your face. They were designed into the canopy in later models. Combat experience showed that these were necessarry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say it's a very nice thing to have at least when engaging bombers!

Bf 109 träff i pansarglaset.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish the sim had the technology to replicate parallax and distortion through the canopy (perhaps a modified rain distortion technology overlay can be used?) so the older types of cockpits with rounded glass could be compared to the flat windscreens. Hell, that can be the answer to the "bar" argument for the planes with thick glass where an optical illusion takes place. Couple videos below to showcase the optical illusion and paralax on some parts of the rounded canopy of the 190.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Field-Ops said:

I wish the sim had the technology to replicate parallax and distortion through the canopy (perhaps a modified rain distortion technology overlay can be used?) so the older types of cockpits with rounded glass could be compared to the flat windscreens. Hell, that can be the answer to the "bar" argument for the planes with thick glass where an optical illusion takes place. Couple videos below to showcase the optical illusion and paralax on some parts of the rounded canopy of the 190.

 

Maybe but it will not be a proper refraction as the rain effect only shift and blur pixels. IMO, a closer to the reality could be drawing the front glass as an another render view just like mirrors are now. Then the viewing angle would be (kind of) right and edges could be distorted through the "rain" effect for more complete illusion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Field-Ops said:

I wish the sim had the technology to replicate parallax and distortion through the canopy (perhaps a modified rain distortion technology overlay can be used?) so the older types of cockpits with rounded glass could be compared to the flat windscreens. Hell, that can be the answer to the "bar" argument for the planes with thick glass where an optical illusion takes place. Couple videos below to showcase the optical illusion and paralax on some parts of the rounded canopy of the 190.

 

1 +

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

Maybe but it will not be a proper refraction as the rain effect only shift and blur pixels. IMO, a closer to the reality could be drawing the front glass as an another render view just like mirrors are now. Then the viewing angle would be (kind of) right and edges could be distorted through the "rain" effect for more complete illusion.

I thought I remember reading that it would be too taxing on performance to do this, and that's why refraction isn't modeled in the game, not sure though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a bubble canopy has nothing to do if the front screen is armoured or not.

The canopy, what ever shape, was never (very few exeptions like the Fw190 Sturmbock Special armour) armoured...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, III/JG53Frankyboy said:

a bubble canopy has nothing to do if the front screen is armoured or not.

The canopy, what ever shape, was never (very few exeptions like the Fw190 Sturmbock Special armour) armoured...............

 

Another example is the Airacobra - you have the big arc behind plus the thick glass in back. The engine block and its aft armor (shielding oil tank) adds to pilot protection. In the front you have prop gears unit which is armored as well plus the usual close front/back plates for the pilot. Kind of a spaced armor arrangement and IRL you weren't going to get any fuel/oil leaks into the canopy.

Compare it the P-47 - you are protected by big radial in the front (a big plus), hefty fuselage, smaller front and bigger back-plate but except that there is nothing special about pilot protection in the Thunderbolt. This is reflected in the sim: I rarely get pilot sniped in the P-39L where in the P-47D it happens a lot more often.

 

However, best protection is keeping your awareness up so... a bubble canopy offers better odds, still.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 6:34 PM, LukeFF said:

Well, one is armored, and one is not. It's not exactly hard to figure out. 

 

 

Hard enough so that you missed the point. But it did give you an excuse to write yet another snotty condescending post, I guess that's something.

 

It was a valid question, and a good question.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Field-Ops said:

I wish the sim had the technology to replicate parallax and distortion through the canopy (perhaps a modified rain distortion technology overlay can be used?) so the older types of cockpits with rounded glass could be compared to the flat windscreens.

 

18 hours ago, Ehret said:

Maybe but it will not be a proper refraction as the rain effect only shift and blur pixels. IMO, a closer to the reality could be drawing the front glass as an another render view just like mirrors are now. Then the viewing angle would be (kind of) right and edges could be distorted through the "rain" effect for more complete illusion.

 

As a screen space technique, the shader used for the rain refraction effect has problems that would become visible if applied to canopy distortion. The raindrops only operate on pixels after most of the scene has been rendered, so artefacts must appear somewhere as no new information is added.

 

Something similar to mirrors could work, but at a very high performance cost. With its own view frustum, a mirror requires many rendering steps repeated separately from the main scene. That's why mirrors and other similar features generally eat fps despite lacking quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

Something similar to mirrors could work, but at a very high performance cost. With its own view frustum, a mirror requires many rendering steps repeated separately from the main scene. That's why mirrors and other similar features generally eat fps despite lacking quality.

 

Not too high performance cost; I have found the big mirror in the P-39 isn't costing that much even when set to "complex". The scene is already rendered (even if partially) multiples times from different perspectives just to get shadows going. Rendering an another view-port wouldn't add that much to the current load - certainly not more than the stereo-rendering needed for the VR and people bear with that ok. Besides... the Pascal GPU series had already acceleration for multi-projection, didn't they?

 

I'm not saying it would be easy to do right but it shouldn't be impossible. Much more affordable option than doing the needed refraction by ray-tracing, now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Not too high performance cost; I have found the big mirror in the P-39 isn't costing that much even when set to "complex". The scene is already rendered (even if partially) multiples times from different perspectives just to get shadows going. Rendering an another view-port wouldn't add that much to the current load - certainly not more than the stereo-rendering needed for the VR and people bear with that ok. Besides... the Pascal GPU series had already acceleration for multi-projection, didn't they?

 

I'm not saying it would be easy to do right but it shouldn't be impossible. Much more affordable option than doing the needed refraction by ray-tracing, now.

Problem is you might not notice the tricks and optimizations they put into their mirrors in this game. The tree render distance is extremely short and I feel like the LOD objects appear much closer than normal. Its still a fantastic implementation for sure but its got its limits. If they were to crank a full render out of such a large field of view we might run into problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Field-Ops said:

Problem is you might not notice the tricks and optimizations they put into their mirrors in this game. The tree render distance is extremely short and I feel like the LOD objects appear much closer than normal. Its still a fantastic implementation for sure but its got its limits. If they were to crank a full render out of such a large field of view we might run into problems.

 

Well... true but it means I might not notice the tricks which would be put apart from the front glass. Once the glass wouldn't be in the middle of screen anymore the optimizations could be switched on for it and turned off for the rest of the canopy.

 

It can be done - it's already done like that whenever possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its useful to stop enemy planes' debris from hitting the glass and breaking it, I could be terribly wrong tho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2018 at 1:28 PM, ZachariasX said:

 

Besides, in the 30‘s the pilot had to have the head out in the air. Pilots are a conservative crowd. Perspex canopys were terrible compared what you have today. Especiallyin the birdcage layout.

 

Reminds me of what Adolf Galland said in an interview when talking about transitioning to the (then brand new) 109. About the pilots' reservations regarding a fully enclosed cockpit, he said something like "we thought a fighter pilot needs to sit out in the open to pick up the smell of engine-oil to track/find his targets".

Pretty quaint thinking when you consider how far advanced the 109 was in the mid/late 30s and what sort of ancient designs pilots had to "give up" when the 109 was first introduced... 😄

 

S.

Edited by 1Sascha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1Sascha said:

 

Reminds me of what Adolf Galland said in an interview when talking about transitioning to the (then brand new) 109. About the pilots' reservations regarding a fully enclosed cockpit, he said something like "we thought a fighter pilot needs to sit out in the open to pick up the smell of engine-oil to track/find his targets".

Pretty quaint thinking when you consider how far advanced the 109 was in the mid/late 30s and what sort of ancient designs pilots had to "give up" when the 109 was first introduced... 😄

 

S.

In any state coach, the coachman has to sit outside. His throttle lever („whip“) wouldn‘t connect to all those horses.

 

The original:

Spoiler

sisskutsche_gr.jpg

 

Metal horses:

Spoiler

Rolls-Royce_New_Phantom_Landaulette_De_V

 

With wings, metal horses:

Spoiler

Junkers_f13.jpg

 

It is unnatural for the driver not sitting outside. Passengers sit inside. In that good world, everyone has his place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2018 at 7:55 AM, 1Sascha said:

 

Reminds me of what Adolf Galland said in an interview when talking about transitioning to the (then brand new) 109. About the pilots' reservations regarding a fully enclosed cockpit, he said something like "we thought a fighter pilot needs to sit out in the open to pick up the smell of engine-oil to track/find his targets".

Pretty quaint thinking when you consider how far advanced the 109 was in the mid/late 30s and what sort of ancient designs pilots had to "give up" when the 109 was first introduced... 😄

 

S.

Back in the 1990's I was flying unpressurized WWII vintage freight aircraft through some of the worst convective weather the US has to offer. The sense of smell was an important tool when navigating a line of thunderstorms. Even when I was flying jets capable of 51,000 feet equipped with the latest electronics, the lessons of those days aided my decision making.

 

Online flying is completely sanitized. Missing are the myriad physical cues that are extremely important. Every sense is used, especially in WWII vintage aviation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now I dunno if armoured glass is worth it. It's mostly useful against bombers, but with the 3.008-3.009 damage models single turret-fired machine gun bullets cut entire wings off, and killing pilots through the armoured glass is easy peasy for them. Other than that I prefer an armoured windscreen though. But like many others I don't even understand what the question is: Why not use both? Why would I need to skip the armour just because I use a bubble? Not like we have bubble canopies that look like the one on an F-16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Inkompetent said:

Right now I dunno if armoured glass is worth it. It's mostly useful against bombers, but with the 3.008-3.009 damage models single turret-fired machine gun bullets cut entire wings off, and killing pilots through the armoured glass is easy peasy for them. Other than that I prefer an armoured windscreen though. But like many others I don't even understand what the question is: Why not use both? Why would I need to skip the armour just because I use a bubble? Not like we have bubble canopies that look like the one on an F-16.

 

Say again? The damage model is a lot tamer these days, compared to pre-3.008. Turret machine guns should not be a big issue, except for the occasional pilot kill, which armoured windshields would naturally protect again.

 

I can attest to the importance of armoured rear glass at least. Those things have saved my life more than I can count. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

 

Say again? The damage model is a lot tamer these days, compared to pre-3.008. Turret machine guns should not be a big issue, except for the occasional pilot kill, which armoured windshields would naturally protect again.

 

"Should" and "is" are two completely different things. Right now the damage models are so bad and inconsistent that I've stopped flying, both in SP and MP. Single-hit wing-offs by defensive guns, and then I need to land 20+ 20mm shells on a fighter when shooting it down in a fight. Pilot-snipes with .30 cals through armoured glass, and I dunno what. I like the idea with the 3.008+ damage models, but they are so horribly bugged/faulty/inconsistent that I wish they just reverted to the old system until the new one is fixed =(

Edited by Inkompetent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Inkompetent said:

 

"Should" and "is" are two completely different things. Right now the damage models are so bad and inconsistent that I've stopped flying, both in SP and MP. Single-hit wing-offs by defensive guns, and then I need to land 20+ 20mm shells on a fighter when shooting it down in a fight. Pilot-snipes with .30 cals through armoured glass, and I dunno what. I like the idea with the 3.008+ damage models, but they are so horribly bugged/faulty/inconsistent that I wish they just reverted to the old system until the new one is fixed =(

 

Well, I admit that hasn't been my experience at all. It _could_ be you've been the victim of an extreme bit of bad luck, since all of these things _could_ technically happen if hit in the right spot (except the armoured glass .30 cal snipe, but it's hard to tell if that's what really happened).

 

The closest thing I've come to getting one-shotted by a bomber was when one hit me with an elevator I shot off (most unsportsmanlike, quite frankly)... and that's a much larger caliber than .30. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2018 at 2:20 AM, Field-Ops said:

I wish the sim had the technology to replicate parallax and distortion through the canopy (perhaps a modified rain distortion technology overlay can be used?) so the older types of cockpits with rounded glass could be compared to the flat windscreens. Hell, that can be the answer to the "bar" argument for the planes with thick glass where an optical illusion takes place. Couple videos below to showcase the optical illusion and paralax on some parts of the rounded canopy of the 190.

 

 

At the risk of lighting off a dead horse, VR radically alters how the German cockpit feels and fights, and a lot of things that are either headscratchers or downright frustrations suddenly just work in VR. 

 

Case in point are the gunsights. In VR, the 190 sight is directly in line with your right eye only, and you end up automatically merging the un-obstructed view from your left eye into the sight picture. Seeing that the first time was a real eureka moment. 

 

Seeing that, and being free to move your head about, the bar no longer matters. All that matters then is how to see around the bowling ball out front. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Voyager said:

 

At the risk of lighting off a dead horse, VR radically alters how the German cockpit feels and fights, and a lot of things that are either headscratchers or downright frustrations suddenly just work in VR. 

 

Case in point are the gunsights. In VR, the 190 sight is directly in line with your right eye only, and you end up automatically merging the un-obstructed view from your left eye into the sight picture. Seeing that the first time was a real eureka moment. 

 

Seeing that, and being free to move your head about, the bar no longer matters. All that matters then is how to see around the bowling ball out front. 

I'm not disagreeing with you as I have VR and fully realize that having two separate cameras make most cockpit superstructure a non-issue. This is universal for all aircrafts, but there is a separate issue regarding the 190 bar that has been "fixed" a long while ago. Look at the picture below, this is the literal representation of the dimensions of the 190 front glass pane and does not take into account thick glass refraction. Notice how they had to artificially raise the gunsight to even see over the bar. Your game does not look like this any more as they physically changed the geometry rather than add refraction. So while we have a dimensionally incorrect plane it is a whole lot better than if they had done nothing at all. No other plane has received this treatment because no other plane has this much of a glaring issue when the literal geometry is taken at face value with no concern for refraction. 

il2bos_fw190_1.jpg

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...