Developer Diary, Part 73

[=38=Tatarenko]

This is the first week where the code has been unstable which I think is pretty amazing! I'm sure they'll fix it. In the meantime I'm really looking forward to this week's update. As we get closer to release it is time for some major updates in all kinds of areas.

 

 

EDIT: and they fixed it already!

Edited July 28, 2014 by =38=Tatarenko

[Dakpilot]

This is the first week where the code has been unstable which I think is pretty amazing! I'm sure they'll fix it. In the meantime I'm really looking forward to this week's update. As we get closer to release it is time for some major updates in all kinds of areas.

 

+1

 

For all the whining and complaining I think people should take a breath and think about what has been delivered in these 30 odd weeks of early access, for the most part 60% of posts sound like they come from impatient 15 year olds...not from discerning educated people interested in WWII flight sims..notwithstanding the bad attitude and rudeness directed at the Devs...more often than not I despair at this flight sim "community"

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

 

I added default revi position and some texts.

 

 

I almost hate to post this for obvious reasons. Thanks resmania for the comparison work.   I posted a screenshot back a bit and said I didn't see an issue in the 190 cockpit.  Now I see what people are talking about.  

 

I looked at the video posted by 312_Cherry and was able to do a rough eyeball comparison between video 190-A5 and in game 190-A3 in approximately the same head position.    I am no expert on whether these two cockpits are the same, so, for all I know this is an apples and oranges comparison.  If so, please let me know.  The clearance of the reticle above the bar was the basis of my original response and this margin is close in either position.  Bottom line the current version is flyable for me and still a great plane to fly!!  Cheers!

 

[ARM505]

...........   I posted a screenshot back a bit and said I didn't see an issue in the 190 cockpit.  Now I see what people are talking about.  ........

 

 

Sorry...couldn't resist it! :biggrin:

Edited July 28, 2014 by ARM505

[JG4_Sputnik]

what surprises me is that the devs could think that we don't notice the revi put much higher than in RL.

I mean it's not like there's no original photos of a 190 pit...?

[Sternjaeger]

I think that by now we can say they were trying to circumvent the problem temporarily, I'm sure this will be fixed.

[Sparrer]

I almost hate to post this for obvious reasons. Thanks resmania for the comparison work.   I posted a screenshot back a bit and said I didn't see an issue in the 190 cockpit.  Now I see what people are talking about.  

 

I looked at the video posted by 312_Cherry and was able to do a rough eyeball comparison between video 190-A5 and in game 190-A3 in approximately the same head position.    I am no expert on whether these two cockpits are the same, so, for all I know this is an apples and oranges comparison.  If so, please let me know.  The clearance of the reticle above the bar was the basis of my original response and this margin is close in either position.  Bottom line the current version is flyable for me and still a great plane to fly!!  Cheers!

 

 

 

Great! This 60mm loks like 600mm

[Brano]

Great! This 60mm loks like 600mm

Give it a break.Frame is absolutely OK.Only problem is refraction (lack of it).It makes you see like there is only normal window double glass fit in instead of armored glass.

See on first real photo how it is again re-refracted by REVI glass? There you see real frame thickness.

[Leaf]

I will repeat it again, for all those that insist on the light refraction, if it impacts the glass frame "bar" - it impacts every single viewable object that passes across the 60mm armored glass. That means any plane crossing laterally across the side panes instantly drops 10 degress. Any plane vertically passing by the vertical canopy and hits the "light refracting amored glass" abruptly jumps. Not to mention any cloud, or the horizon or anything.

 

That never happened, stop with this light refracting nonsense.

 

I love how you just hate the laws of Physics! Awful things, aren't they?

Your argument would make sense if there were only two media to contend with. I.e. if there were light coming from air into the glass. Like when you see fish swimming underwater.

However, there are three. The light goes from air to glass and back to air. It is therefore refracted twice. This allows the glass to seem thinner than it is, without distorting the position of objects outside the cockpit. It's to do with Snell's Law, I believe.

 

[ICDP]

Give it a break.Frame is absolutely OK.Only problem is refraction (lack of it).It makes you see like there is only normal window double glass fit in instead of armored glass.

See on first real photo how it is again re-refracted by REVI glass? There you see real frame thickness.

 

That darker part at the bottom of the revi is not the bar re-fracted further (or less). That is just the sun visor on the revi in its folded position.

Edited July 28, 2014 by ICDP

[Panzerlang]

They've had an entire day to realise and respond to the furore. But nada. It really does smack of a form of casual contempt in my opinion. Not impressed. At all.

[Jason_Williams]

They've had an entire day to realise and respond to the furore. But nada. It really does smack of a form of casual contempt in my opinion. Not impressed. At all.

 

Siggi,

 

Your attitude doesn't endear us to respond to your constant complaining and your accusations of contempt or whatever else you accuse us of. The plane has only been released 48 hours ago! I don't know, give us time to research the issue??? But just to please you, here is my current answer (you won't like it) and remember any possible design changes are made by Loft, not me, so this is the last I will comment on this topic in public. And any further attempts to smear our intentions or reputation because we may simply differ on the correct shape of this window will be deleted.

 

Loft tells me we built the windshield according to the drawings we have and they show different from all the various stuff posted on the board. We built it to whatever drawings our research uncovered which is usually pretty damn thorough. Plus we don't have a way to model "refraction" or whatever optical illusion folks claim makes the window look bigger than it is. We may model physics like winds etc, but we don't model the bending of light. So the model would have to be physically altered somehow and therefore the 3D model would be inaccurate from our source documents. Again, that decision comes from the boys and girls in Moscow and they are unlikely to engage in a debate in the public forum over this topic. Your complaints have been duly noted. This is a small piece of a much larger product, but because so many are so damn passionate about it I will continue to discuss with Loft in private about this issue.

 

And I say this with peace and love. 

 

                                               

 

Jason

[Brano]

That darker part at the bottom of the revi is not the bar re-fracted further (or less). That is just the sun visor on the revi in its folded position.

Yes you are right.What a jedi mindtrick

[Dakpilot]

They've had an entire day to realise and respond to the furore. But nada. It really does smack of a form of casual contempt in my opinion. Not impressed. At all.

 

LoL in one day a patch is up fixing the code error causing the CTD's...rather important  and the obvious wing damage problem has been tracked down and fixed and patched 

 

Very impressed most other flight sims you would wait at least a week for that......or maybe two

 

32 weeks of stable Alpha with one hiccup.. fixed in one day...pretty good record in the gaming industry 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[312_Cherry]

I almost hate to post this for obvious reasons. Thanks resmania for the comparison work.   I posted a screenshot back a bit and said I didn't see an issue in the 190 cockpit.  Now I see what people are talking about.  

 

I looked at the video posted by 312_Cherry and was able to do a rough eyeball comparison between video 190-A5 and in game 190-A3 in approximately the same head position.    I am no expert on whether these two cockpits are the same, so, for all I know this is an apples and oranges comparison.  If so, please let me know.  The clearance of the reticle above the bar was the basis of my original response and this margin is close in either position.  Bottom line the current version is flyable for me and still a great plane to fly!!  Cheers!

 

 

Look at the video in a time of 4: 44 and you'll see that the camera from which you made the photo is circa 30 cm higher than the pilot's eyes, so those shots do not show the correct angle of vision. A Video I put mainly for a sense of what it's like to see Il2 eyes pilot FW or FW saw gunner Il2. I trust DEV team, that's what we have in the game is done according to the available information. Personally, I've never flown in the original FW, but my opinion is that the lower part of the telescopic sights was lightly covered. On the video, in a time of 4: 40-4: 46 it is easy to see where the pilot has his eyes against the windshield and REVI.

Sorry for the English helped me translate

 

PS: you're doing it WELL dev. TEAME!!!

S!

[SeriousFox]

The images above in Cherry's post clearly show the difference between a A-5, (top image) and A-3, (bottom image). Peace and Love

 

It has same cockpit except for some variation changes on instrument panel.

Edited July 29, 2014 by resmania

[Nankeen]

Found this to be an interesting read: http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/Flugzeuge/Jeager/Fw190A3/cockpit/Fw190A3Cockpit.htm

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

 

Look at the video in a time of 4: 44 and you'll see that the camera from which you made the photo is circa 30 cm higher than the pilot's eyes, so those shots do not show the correct angle of vision.

 

312_Cherry, the position of the camera does not effect the comparison as long as the in game screenshot can duplicate the same location and angle as the camera.  I didn't just take any frame for the shot.  My shot is from frame 4:59 when the pilot has his head down adjusting things and he starts to look up.  It is as close as I could come to a pilot level view and one that could be closely approximated in game.  There are wide angle lens factors (e.g. curvature) that come into play that the game screenshot cannot duplicate (without a lot of effort) but these don't negate the comparison of the placement and height of the gun site and appearance of the canopy thickness.

 

After all is said and done, yes, I see the issue however, IMHO, this is a minor detail and one we have no control over, so we might as well just go fly.  There is one hell of a lot to enjoy in this sim.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 With all respect and just asking. How can Loft's drawings differ from original Fw190 drawings that have been shown? They are not state secrets.

[Bearcat]

Well, i think first of all, the devs should have learned something from all that.

 

One of thew things that kills me most about all this is that some of the more vocal people in this thread and elsewhere  are some of the same folks who were blowing gaskets because the 190 was not released last week or the week before... Relax guys. If you think the devs should have learned something from "all that" then I submit to you that some of the members here that have such deep concerns , whether founded or unfounded should consider what we have learned from this team over the past 12 months..... and relax.

 

 

LOL are you kidding me?  I mean REALLY?  DCS each module 50 bucks  EACH MODULE..  2 aircraft 100 bucks.  

Not, saying they don't do a great job, but lets try to keep things in context here.

 

+1

[Hunin]

Loft tells me we built the windshield according to the drawings we have and they show different from all the various stuff posted on the board. We built it to whatever drawings our research uncovered which is usually pretty damn thorough. Plus we don't have a way to model "refraction" or whatever optical illusion folks claim makes the window look bigger than it is. We may model physics like winds etc, but we don't model the bending of light. So the model would have to be physically altered somehow and therefore the 3D model would be inaccurate from our source documents. Again, that decision comes from the boys and girls in Moscow and they are unlikely to engage in a debate in the public forum over this topic. Your complaints have been duly noted. This is a small piece of a much larger product, but because so many are so damn passionate about it I will continue to discuss with Loft in private about this issue.

 

 

Jason

 

It is great to hear that you are debating the subject.

For my part I was sceptical / indifferent about the entire bar controversy until I saw the documentation in this thread.

 

I think from a design standpoint the boys and girls in Moscow must be aware of the issue at least partially - afterall the model does deviate from the blue prints in that the revi is mounted higher up to clear the lower framing.

Although I appreciate this sollution and much prefer it to the older IL-2's version ( as much as I appreciate the clearly enourmous love for detail in the rest of the 190 or any of this sim's planes for that matter ) it does come with drawbacks that are somewhat significant in their own right.

For example the higher gunsight leads to a quite different field of view out of the front-side windows of the canopy even in customized head positions.

 

In any case I would like to give my kindest regards to the team for giving us the most beautifull and complete version of this warbird I have ever seen in any sim.

If it is in any way possible to work around the missing refraction and approximate it even closer to reality I trust that the person calling it will want to go the extra mile.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Hunin

[FlatSpinMan]

Haven't seen the 190 for myself (I'm on holiday - sorry, "working"- in the Canadian Rockies for 2 weeks) but I am impressed by the response of the Devs to patch the wings issue.

As for the view, I can't say, obviously,but the Devs have a rationale for their decision. Any game has some limitations that differ from reality, because its not reality. If its wrong,I hope they fix it. If its just one interpretation amongst others, then I'll just play with it as it is.

[SvAF/F16_Goblin]

Refraction actually plays a big role in reality, it is not that the window appears bigger but the frame appears smaller.

In reality it acts sort of like a magnifying glass (but not really). Take a look at the pilots face in this picture, it seems
quite big right. This is because the glass bends the light causing the face of the pilot to appear much closer than
he really is.

 

Also clearly visible i that the frame appears much smaller.

 

Now I know that this is like beating a dead horse and I will not mention it again, I promise :D

 

 

[Panzerlang]

Well gee, I had no idea I was the one and only chap hollering about the windscreen! In actual fact I wasn't even the first.

 

But thanks for the info Jason, it genuinely helps a lot because now we know exactly what is what and why we have what we have.

I'm surprised the devs made such a fundamental error but they should take it as a compliment that nobody jumped to that conclusion.

 

Anyway, now we can move on from "what the heck?!" to hoping it can be fixed.

 

Peace & love.

[I/JG27_Rollo]

[...]

 

And I say this with peace and love. <video>

Oh my, Jason, you look horrible in that video - for god's sake take some vacation!

[JG4_Sputnik]

Thanks for the info Jayson. Hope the devs will look deep into this

And while we ar at it: why do the corners of the leather rim in the real life Focke look so much rounder and smoother than in the virtual one?

I mean the two edges left and right of the REVI, they look like a whole different angle. But maybe it's the camera's distortion?

 

I hope the devs and some guys in here don't take these "critisisms" as an insult rather than the welcome and healthy effect of Collective Intelligence which in our day and age is a huge chance to get things as perfectly as humanly possible.

Edited July 29, 2014 by JG4_Sputnik

[widgeon]

 

 

Loft tells me we built the windshield according to the drawings we have and they show different from all the various stuff posted on the board. We built it to whatever drawings our research uncovered which is usually pretty damn thorough.

 

 

I would like to point out, although perhaps this is obvious, the above statement is the crux of the problem.

 

If built to blueprints, without the effect of refraction, the 190 cockpit looks like what we have.

The raised gunsight is the jury rigged solution.

 

ie.)  Refraction IS the reason the "drawings" are different than the real world view.  I understand refraction can't be modeled, but its effects can, and since its effects are essentially static one does not need to model the dynamic effects of refraction.

 

Therefore, the real world view is what should be represented as it applies to all cockpits.

 

 Refraction is conceptually not that difficult, yet it would seem a bridge too far. 

 

Thank you for listening.

[Zak]

Several game engines have been able to render light refraction for about the last 10 or 12 years.

It's not that it can't be done exactly, just that the BOS engine doesn't (yet?) have the capability.

Our engine is definitely capable of modeling refraction (it would be surprising if it couldn't considering the ammount of other physical stuff it handles). But it takes too much resources for real time rendering. Imagine every ray of light going thru the lens and your PC rendering all that. We're not a glass simulator, and we're not adding refraction to make sure the game is playable.

[303_Kwiatek]

Why you just can't cut these thick frames in forward  Fw 190 glass window and everyhthing would be ok?   From first get in Fw 190 cocpit it is obvious that these frames are too thick comparing to the rest of the plane canopy

[widgeon]

 

 

We're not a glass simulator, and we're not adding refraction to make sure the game is playable.

 

 

 

 

Why you just can't cut these thick frames in forward  Fw 190 glass window and everyhthing would be ok?   From first get in Fw 190 cocpit it is obvious that these frames are too thick comparing to the rest of the plane canopy

 

 This is the point I was making above.....of course this is not a glass simulator.

 

You do not have to model dynamic refraction, because the effects are essentially static.  

 

ie) The glass thickness, angle, refractive index of air, and the glass are constant. 

[Sparrer]

S!

 

Why you just can't cut these thick frames in forward  Fw 190 glass window and everyhthing would be ok?   From first get in Fw 190 cocpit it is obvious that these frames are too thick comparing to the rest of the plane canopy

 

 

Agreed. This would be an error. But a minor one to correct a bigger one (refraction missing...or whatever). So this could be a nice solution (with the revi down).

[JtD]

It's how it was done in the original Il-2. It worked.

[Panzerlang]

If the frames cannot be subtracted due to how it would make the plane's model look externally, can they be made transparent from the internal perspective (looking out from the cockpit)? Or some other kind of jiggery-pokery that'll give us a realistic forward view rather than the significant impediment the pilot has now in regards to acquiring and tracking targets.

[ARM505]

Thanks for the info Jayson. Hope the devs will look deep into this

And while we ar at it: why do the corners of the leather rim in the real life Focke look so much rounder and smoother than in the virtual one?

I mean the two edges left and right of the REVI, they look like a whole different angle. But maybe it's the camera's distortion?

 

I hope the devs and some guys in here don't take these "critisisms" as an insult rather than the welcome and healthy effect of Collective Intelligence which in our day and age is a huge chance to get things as perfectly as humanly possible.

 

I wouldn't worry about the leather padding, it's just the variation in the stuffing behind it compared to the very trim and propper padding we have in BOS. That would vary from plane to plane I would imagine, as it gets a little worn and beat up, as well as just how stuffed with padding it was. Nothing major.

 

Anyway.

 

I really think progress has been made to be honest, I know to many this whole thing is a storm in a teacup, but can we all sort of agree that we're now in the 'we know what it is, what it should be, and why it's caused, but the solution (if/when) is still forthcoming' phase? You could even sticky it for new guys :lol: to prevent:

 

*New guy: 'Hey, I see the bar on the 190 is really thick, dontcha think the devs could have maybe........'

*EVERYBODY ELSE:

[Panzerlang]

I wouldn't worry about the leather padding, it's just the variation in the stuffing behind it compared to the very trim and propper padding we have in BOS. That would vary from plane to plane I would imagine, as it gets a little worn and beat up, as well as just how stuffed with padding it was. Nothing major.

 

Anyway.

 

I really think progress has been made to be honest, I know to many this whole thing is a storm in a teacup, but can we all sort of agree that we're now in the 'we know what it is, what it should be, and why it's caused, but the solution (if/when) is still forthcoming' phase? You could even sticky it for new guys :lol: to prevent:

 

*New guy: 'Hey, I see the bar on the 190 is really thick, dontcha think the devs could have maybe........'

*EVERYBODY ELSE:

 

[6S.Manu]

Our engine is definitely capable of modeling refraction (it would be surprising if it couldn't considering the ammount of other physical stuff it handles). But it takes too much resources for real time rendering. Imagine every ray of light going thru the lens and your PC rendering all that. We're not a glass simulator, and we're not adding refraction to make sure the game is playable.

 

I understand Zak. It's quite clear.

 

I think the solution is to change the cockpit 3D model to reproduce the real view.

[SCG_Neun]

Personally I'm very pleased that the devs have chimed in so quickly on all this. It's refreshing to have this kind of communication. Thanks guys for all the great work on this sim and best of luck trying to make adjustments as the product nears completion.

[JG4_Sputnik]

Why you just can't cut these thick frames in forward  Fw 190 glass window and everyhthing would be ok?   From first get in Fw 190 cocpit it is obvious that these frames are too thick comparing to the rest of the plane canopy

Exactely, this sounds good!

If the frames cannot be subtracted due to how it would make the plane's model look externally, can they be made transparent from the internal perspective (looking out from the cockpit)? Or some other kind of jiggery-pokery that'll give us a realistic forward view rather than the significant impediment the pilot has now in regards to acquiring and tracking targets.

Not sure about this. If I recall right, the REVI of the external model is at its propper place (the internal and external cockpit are not the same I suppose), so maybe it would be sufficent to only cut those bars in the cockpit model.

I'm no modeler though. But I think the devs will find a solution if there is a reasonable one.

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

Well,

If there won't be any changes, I will swap to DCS. This is just incompetence in its true shape.

[6S.Manu]

Not sure about this. If I recall right, the REVI of the external model is at its propper place (the internal and external cockpit are not the same I suppose), so maybe it would be sufficent to only cut those bars in the cockpit model.

I'm no modeler though. But I think the devs will find a solution if there is a reasonable one.

 

Good point.

 

Don't know why my posts have been removed when I exposed this solution.

Edited July 29, 2014 by 6S.Manu