Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BlackSix

Developer Diary, Part 73

Recommended Posts

Correct, project creep is dangerous and we are really good at avoiding it. This topic is a special one so maybe we will consider making a change.

 

Jason

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hi Jason,

 

Having flown within IL-2 1946 for years, I'm very happy with the FW-190A3 as well as everything else that has been created here. Thanks for the hard work and everything that has been created so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see an open-minded and balanced approach from the devs. Thanks for the communication and being open to making changes.

 

My penny's worth...from what seems to have been demonstrated so far...

 

It seems that the lack of refraction modelling is the problem here. This is resulting in an accurate 3-D model producing 'inaccurate' results from the perspective of the in-game pilot.

 

As the ideal solution of implementing real-time refraction modelling is a non-starter, we're faced with an unavoidable choice between either strict accuracy of the 3-D model OR accuracy of the view.

 

It seems that most who have expressed an opinion are in favour of making changes to the 3-D model to produce a more accurate view for the virtual pilot. Departing from carefully researched and objective data is obviously not something that should be usually done. Objective accuracy is the hallmark of any 'sim' worthy of the name. But in this particular case it seems inevitable that one element WILL unavoidably be inaccurate - either the 3-D model OR the view.  

 

And faced with that conundrum it seems that an accurate view for the virtual pilot is the more important element.

 

And I expect with a bit of cleverness from the devs and some judicious tweaking any departure from strict accuracy of the 3-D model will not be too apparent.

Edited by kendo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jason for the communication.  

 

When I was banging my head against the wall in year seven with CLoD ... and getting frustrated with little (and many times inaccurate or over-promised and never delivered ... "our super-amazing new feature that will be a first in the CFS industy"  - Luthier) or no communication, I thought ... if only 777 could take over this project!  Well it happened and 777 / Team Loft have done an amazing job.  I think we should all remember this is the "only game in town" and we should make sure our comments are constructive, not overly aggressive or condescending. Let's show a little gratitude.  Yes they have our money and we are the customer but I think we got the better end of the deal ... IMHO. :biggrin:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Save that money for the infantry models please  ;)

agree

 

The infantry thread turned me. 

Edited by gx007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'd rather have this actually :cool:

 

 

post-50-0-05168100-1406670018_thumb.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'd rather have this actually :cool:

 

Hahaha! You just had to bring it back, didn't you? :D

 

The devs need to raise the bar here. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost always side with the dev's but in this case I'm with JG4Helofly:  "I would also favor a realistic cockpit view over a realistic 3D model."

 

Everything is a compromise. Stay true to the vision for the sim but don't be so rigid as to ignore the current criticism.

 

This time the dev's should compromise for the enjoyment factor of the sim. Changing the internal model, slightly, solves a host of gaming and visual issues and would silence the screaming masses. The Fw is an iconic aircraft and people are very passionate about it. Thin the supports ever so slightly, LOWER the dang sight - it is painfully obvious it is wrong, and lower the pilot's POV slightly.

 

The compromise made - raising the sight - is worse than the alternate compromise - thinning the supports and lowering the view but both are compromises in the end. I would much rather it feels (looks) right than have it match a blueprint. As I and every other virtual pilot spend the majority of our time, "in the cockpit," the view should have priority over strict adherence to the model. At least, in this rarest of cases. I'd rather the view match the multitude of non-fisheye photos which are widely available on, "the internets."

 

Thanks for acknowledging and looking into it Jason and the Team.

Edited by A1FltTrn=HerrMurf
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go parsing every single word we say for debate class.... I will share what I think should be done to Loft privately.

 

Jason

 

What!? You're going to hurt him? No!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The photo shown from the external viewpoint on this page, that glass is not 60mm (or 2.5") thick.

 

Here's a photo from behind a 190, clearly the frame of the 190's forward cockpit glass is present in view. Also, the "refraction" impacts everything as I've said before - not just the glass frame. Therefore, everything should shift when passing the "refraction" glass of only the 190. That means everything should shift accordingly, aircraft passing from 9O'clock to 12O'clock woudn't track across the screen they sould suddenly jump due to the aformentioned glass refraction. Keep in mind, many other aircraft have bulletproof glass that should cause refraction - but for some reason they don't. 109F4 being one of them, no one ever complains about the glass refraction there.

 

It is not glass refraction, otherwise every single other aircraft with thick glass would have that issue - the 190 isn't unique to thick forward glass.

 

Maybe it's just because of the way the cockpit is in the 190, the photos attached should show how it is situated from behind the aircraft - simply the instrument panel cover is situated higher than the canopy framing system for the "bar." Not glass refraction at play here, simply POV.

 

post-9266-0-02053100-1406677067_thumb.jpgpost-9266-0-30179000-1406677075_thumb.jpg

 

If the 190's 2.5" glass causes the forward section of the frame to shift down a quarter to half an inch, then every single object will do that as they pass from the thinner quarter panel glass making tracking very difficult to line up a shot against aircraft. And the 190 wouldn't be unique in this, because again, that wouldn't be the only aircraft experiencing this phenomena that for some reason some think impacts only the 190. That right there cause some pause that maybe it was a totally bogus idea invented during the Il-2 "bar" debates, else why did no other aircraft with thick glass experience refraction?

Edited by FuriousMeow
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be realist a minute. The only way to get the light at least a little bit realistic would be through ray-tracing. That simply can't happen... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be realist a minute. The only way to get the light at least a little bit realistic would be through ray-tracing. That simply can't happen... 

 

Oh, it absolutely can be done! We'll just be playing at 1fp16hrs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Or you'd rather have a wrong 3D model but a better view? .

I think most would answer yes to that question.

One of those cases where a compromise might be necessary?

IF the rails do actually appear much thinner to the eye in an actual 190 cockpit and don't appear so thick like they current do,

then I think the compromise makes sense all things considered, and it's an easy fix. That's IF - because I have no idea.

 

The proper, realistic view through the front of that cockpit should, IMHO, take priority over any other consideration.

That said, it's plenty flyable as it is, and a gorgeous piece of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is a special one so maybe we will consider making a change. 

 

Good Luck with that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...you'd rather have a wrong 3D model but a better view?

Yes - because the 'wrong' model will be more realistic in terms of actual view. We have ample photographic evidence that the front cockpit framing in real Fw 19os appears thinner than the BoS model - and we have a simple explanation why this is so. Given the fact that the pilot's head movement is restricted, a fix which reduces the apparent thickness of the front armoured glass is all that is needed. we don't need 'ray tracing' or in-sim modelling of refraction, as even assuming this were possible, the effect would be almost indistinguishable from the simpler fix.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope devs look into missing gap on lower instrument panel too. Since it looks like they're gathering some opinions about front glass frame.  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - because the 'wrong' model will be more realistic in terms of actual view. We have ample photographic evidence that the front cockpit framing in real Fw 19os appears thinner than the BoS model - and we have a simple explanation why this is so. Given the fact that the pilot's head movement is restricted, a fix which reduces the apparent thickness of the front armoured glass is all that is needed. we don't need 'ray tracing' or in-sim modelling of refraction, as even assuming this were possible, the effect would be almost indistinguishable from the simpler fix.

 

No, we don't have ample anything. We don't know the dimensions of the "evidence" of glass that are thinner. We don't know the mounts. I just put up a photograph that clearly shows the bar from behind, which is through the "thick glass" that would cause "refraction." There has been zero actual evidence refraction even occurs, just some "well refraction happens, so that must the case!"

 

But for some reason only the 190 has refraction? That isn't the only aircraft with thick armored glass, so why is the 190 the only aircraf this refraction phenomena occurs? Because it is a simple explanation for the simple, refraction is not the reason - my pictures clearly show the bar visible that refraction should have made thinner.

 

Oh, and refraction - it makes things bigger too, doesn't just bend things to the convenience of one's argument to ensure one aircraft - just one out of all WWII aircraft with thick armored glass - has a narrowed lower cockpit frame, which in this case doesn't interfere with lead aiming unlike the old Il-2 series.

 

The refraction argument is not ample evidence as it would apply to every single aircraft of WWII that had armored glass, which the majority had. No one complains that the F4U's nose is bent and larger than it should be. Or the 109F4 with armored glass, conveniently ignored - but that too would suffer the same fate. As would every other aircraft with thick armored glass. Lest we forget, it will also cause aicraft being tracked from the left or right side to suddenly jump down a quarter of an inch at least  which would make lateral lead shooting impossible.

 

No, refraction is an insufficient reasoning and answer - else it would be a global issue and would cause size differences for more than just the armored glass frame as it impacts every single object visible through the armored glass. No one has explained how the German's overcame that flaw, aircraft suddenly going from halfway up the windscreen on the quarter panel to a quarter inch lower just as they would be approaching the gunsight? And why is it only the 190? Because, refraction isn't the issue and never was.

 

Notice how much larger the base of the knife becomes when subject to refraction. Guess that would, you know, do the same thing with the far side of the cockpit frame.

post-9266-0-06131000-1406684660_thumb.jpg

 

Refraction was a fancy attempt to excuse away a poor cockpit placement with respect to the 3D model in the old Il-2 series. This cockpit framing doesn't intefere with aiming in BoS while the old Il-2 series did.

 

If refraction is the cause for the thinner appearing lower armored glass frame, then holding a bar across the 190's nose would have it appear to be lower and a separate piece from the side windows - the bar in front of the armored glass would literally be a quarter inch lower than the other sides of the bar viewed through the thinner quarter panel windows.

 

Refraction will cause an issue viewing everything, not just the far side of the armored glass frame only on the lower section. That is some selective refraction, I must say!

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - because the 'wrong' model will be more realistic in terms of actual view. We have ample photographic evidence that the front cockpit framing in real Fw 19os appears thinner than the BoS model - and we have a simple explanation why this is so. Given the fact that the pilot's head movement is restricted, a fix which reduces the apparent thickness of the front armoured glass is all that is needed. we don't need 'ray tracing' or in-sim modelling of refraction, as even assuming this were possible, the effect would be almost indistinguishable from the simpler fix.

Any poetry pertinent at this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meow,

 

Your points are well taken sir, but with the curve of the glass you in effect have a lens - not quite the same effect as a flat piece of glass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FuriousMeow, you are now on my ignore list. I have no interest in debating with people who can't be bothered to do even elementary research before spouting glib straw-man arguments.

Edited by AndyJWest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meow,

 

Your points are well taken sir, but with the curve of the glass you in effect have a lens - not quite the same effect as a flat piece of glass.

 

Well, that was only added in because someone else used a person in a pool earlier to show refraction and Andy used a drawing that shows a slight change in viewpoint based on something. It could have been a mess up and not intended. The picture from the right quarter panel canopy that is used on this page showing "refraction" doesn't have a 2.5"/60mm piece of glass, looks to be about .5". Nothing is convincing, especially since it wouldn't just be the 190 impacted by this refraction.

 

That's fine Andy, good to know you can't answer why any other aircraft with armored glass doesn't produce the same refraction only the 190 suffer from. I provided a photo from a 190's rear that would be through the cockpit's thick armored glass that would have refracted away that armored cockpit frame - except, it is still there. Refraction impacts cameras just as much as the human eye - this isn't the shaky tracer gun camera nonsense, refraction is clearly visible through pictures.

 

Elementary research indeed. Go get a 2.5" piece of glass, mount it in a frame - take a picture through it. I suspect you'll be doing your best to ensure somehow the light bends around the frame, but it won't.

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More armored glass, and the P40 had it off-center mount to get rid of a gunsight glare. If refraction really thinned out the armored frame (didn't here for the P40 either), it would have played all kinds of mess on the P40's pilot's since not only is it angled vertically but horizontally too!

 

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=28152

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the trailer is how it will look like at 100% ?  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big part of my daily grind is working with diamonds. The characteristics of refraction comes up a lot as you might imagine.

The oddities of the 190 cockpit look much more like incorrect placement and thickness of the frame, as there is no foreshortening of perspective akin to what can be seen on the real thing. These frames are tapering away and with the inner face at an angle almost 90 degrees to the eye. Even with the armoured glass removed, the real life frames would not appear as thick as they do in game.

Edited by Feathered_IV
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More armored glass, and the P40 had it off-center mount to get rid of a gunsight glare. If refraction really thinned out the armored frame (didn't here for the P40 either), it would have played all kinds of mess on the P40's pilot's since not only is it angled vertically but horizontally too!

 

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=28152

Oh come on, man! You gotta be kidding!

Let's try this one more time, shall we?

 

Look at the second P-40 picture in that link you provided (the one with the six gentlemen in the foreground). (For your convenience I attached it to this post).

Can you tell me why the left side of the armored frame looks so much thinner than the right side?

 

I give you a hint:

It starts with "refrac" and ends with "tion".

 

Now, don't get all worked up. I'm just teasing!

 

I'm a simple minded guy. There's tons of sh1t in this world that I don't understand or don't believe in, but that doesn't necessarily mean, it doesn't exist!

Same goes for refraction. You don't believe in it, despite all the evidence? Okay, fine. Doesn't make it any less real though!

 

And NO, refraction DOES NOT just affect the 190! Did anyone ever claim it does? (honest question!)

post-2831-0-45691600-1406688483_thumb.jpg

Edited by Matze81
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'd rather have this actually :cool:

 

 

332_Goblin,

 

Your photo is of a FW-190 A8 that was part of a Mistel.  I took a photo of it, from a similar angle, when it was hanging in the Imperial War Museum in London.  I recognize it from the empty twisted gun site frame.  I didn't post my photo as I was not sure if a Mistel 190 would have the same thickness glass as the A3 in the game or something thinner.  Standard A8's were thicker than the A3, I believe.  Anyway, here is the link on that aircraft.

 

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/whats-going-on/news/focke-wulf-fw190-now-on-display-at-cosford/

Edited by VR-Stick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But for some reason only the 190 has refraction? That isn't the only aircraft with thick armored glass, so why is the 190 the only aircraf this refraction phenomena occurs? Because it is a simple explanation for the simple, refraction is not the reason - my pictures clearly show the bar visible that refraction should have made thinner.

 

The 190 has the steepest angled front glass that I've seen on WWII aircraft. It's a drastic oversimplification to say "if other aircraft had armored glass, this should be a problem for them too" - there are many factors that come into play, such as sight placement (how far from the glass it is, how high above the bottom bar it is), pilot head location and bar placement (if the glass is very long and goes a long way down, even a huge bar would not be an issue). 

 

Notice how much larger the base of the knife becomes when subject to refraction. Guess that would, you know, do the same thing with the far side of the cockpit frame.

attachicon.gifIMG_20140729_213343_673.jpg

 

Notice how you're just getting random pictures of refraction and using the ones that fit your point? The knife looks to be roughly the correct size on the top viewing plane of the water (the surface of the water) and appears larger through the side. The bar in the 190 is on the bottom surface of the glass and a little on the opposite side of the glass. So, instead of sticking a knife in a cup, how about you put a knife behind an angled piece of flat glass and also one along the bottom surface of an angled piece of flat glass?

 

How about this - get something with a flat, clear (undistorted) glass or transparent plastic bottom, fill it with water and look down on the top surface. Put your finger right on the bottom surface of the cup/container (edit: on the outside of the bottom surface, I should say - not in the water). It seems normal, right? Now, hold the cup/container where it is and move your head out (move your head in a direction parallel to the ground). Notice that magically your finger no longer lines up with itself when viewed through the cup? If you moved your head out so that the top surface of the cup was lower than your face (again, all of this is talking as if parallel to the ground), you will notice that your finger appears lower when viewed through the glass. Now also notice that the further out you move your head (making the surface of the water at a steeper and steeper angle to your sight), the amount your finger moves down increases. This is exactly what happens with a thick, steeply angled piece of glass, when viewing a bar at the outside bottom of it.

 

I can try to take some pictures to show what I mean, if this was too difficult to understand.

 

Refraction was a fancy attempt to excuse away a poor cockpit placement with respect to the 3D model in the old Il-2 series. This cockpit framing doesn't intefere with aiming in BoS while the old Il-2 series did.

 

I agree that pilot head placement and possible FoV is a factor in why the 190 in BoS looks wrong compared to RL, but I don't see why refraction is an "attempt to excuse away poor cockpit placement". DCS had the same problem with their 190 and it has, from what they have shown, an almost 100% accurate 3D model. 

 

You can clearly see that refraction does come into play; just look at the picture posted before:

 

post-50-0-05168100-1406670018.jpg

 

It's at an extreme angle, sure, but it clearly shows that the cowling's apparent position through the glass is drastically lower than it truly is. If you want to deny physics, you at least can't deny a picture which clearly shows refraction occurring due to the glass.

 

Refraction will cause an issue viewing everything, not just the far side of the armored glass frame only on the lower section. That is some selective refraction, I must say!

 

Yes, refraction will affect everything viewed through the glass, but consistently. If we go back to the cup/container example I spoke of before, you will also notice that if you move your finger further away from the cup/container, it will not become any lower than it already was to the rest of your finger. So the amount of refraction will be consistent, which means that when the gun sight is sighted in, it will be effectively sighted for anything at any distance in front of the glass (ignoring ballistic drop and lead, of course). 

 

More armored glass, and the P40 had it off-center mount to get rid of a gunsight glare. If refraction really thinned out the armored frame (didn't here for the P40 either), it would have played all kinds of mess on the P40's pilot's since not only is it angled vertically but horizontally too!

 

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=28152

 

The second last picture in the first post there very clearly shows the left "bar" of the glass (which is seen through the glass) appears very thin compared to the right bar, while the lower bar (again, seen through the glass) also appears thinner than the top bar. The last picture also shows this occurring, thought the relative difference in position of the left and right bars from the camera contribute to this too.

 

 

BTW, I came to check on the progress of BoS to see how it's coming along and whether I'm interested in purchasing it yet. Seeing the same issues as in IL-2 1946 resurface, I have to say I'm still not convinced. I'm also seeing quite a few threads which show incorrect flight models (way too high roll rates, sometimes strange speeds and climb rates, etc). I think I'll (once again) hold off buying for now. If these issues are fixed some time in the future and the flight and damage models seem ok, I'll most certainly be purchasing BoS.

Edited by Mattress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FW 190 has really think armoured glass on the front, the frame is adequately think as well. Everything is true to the original reference. Or you'd rather have a wrong 3D model but a better view? Not adding refraction does not mean removing actual thickness of the frames.

Come on guys, in not in total defense here. I'm just saying that the 3D seems to be okay and modelling is definitely not what you should be troubled with.

 

You're going to need that gun....

 

 scarface-pacino3.jpg

 

 

It's times like this, a sense of humour is quite healthy, don't you think? ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god were still on this? They have said they will look i to changing it. Move on already

Or just link us to the doctorate paper so we can read about it later.

 

I havent gotteN to fly since the mini patch, are the wings fixed in MP as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FW 190 has really think armoured glass on the front, the frame is adequately think as well. Everything is true to the original reference. Or you'd rather have a wrong 3D model but a better view? Not adding refraction does not mean removing actual thickness of the frames.

Come on guys, in not in total defense here. I'm just saying that the 3D seems to be okay and modelling is definitely not what you should be troubled with.

thank you for staying true to the original model :) but about the Tail wheel it dosent seem to lock

and there is no Boost or do i mistake?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FW 190 has really think armoured glass on the front, the frame is adequately think as well. Everything is true to the original reference. Or you'd rather have a wrong 3D model but a better view? Not adding refraction does not mean removing actual thickness of the frames.

Come on guys, in not in total defense here. I'm just saying that the 3D seems to be okay and modelling is definitely not what you should be troubled with.

The question is, are you trying to simulate one blueprint or a plane? The refraction is something that was part of the design. Not a mistake.

The front armored glass for the FW190 was made by Carl Zeiss, not some no name sweat shop!

Zeiss makes quality lenses. That fw190 front armor glass is a quality lens. The effects of the lens are precise science, that was part of the design.

Fw190 = the whole design, not only one blueprint.

 

You can get that calculated effect right, with proper 3D work, no need for refraction modeling. Just do the math and see what you have to modify to get it right.

Edited by Jaws2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More armored glass, and the P40 had it off-center mount to get rid of a gunsight glare. If refraction really thinned out the armored frame (didn't here for the P40 either), it would have played all kinds of mess on the P40's pilot's since not only is it angled vertically but horizontally too!

 

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=28152

With this pics, you disprooved your point?

75e2c4f26536f041_large.jpg

armorangle1.jpg

3522417573_e6b1775e00_b.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look how much "no refraction" is going on here.

Sometimes it's just manlier to admit a battle is lost...

 

efvxvsiy23.jpg

Edited by JG4_Sputnik
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this picture PROOVES what the actual refraction does and did for the panzerglass windscreens:

Thanks for this picture. Ill post this in all the duscussionthreads on the issue. devs really cant just deny this prooven fact.

post-535-0-13795700-1406706746_thumb.jpg

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not only a proven fact, it's a law of physics. It's ridiculous to even argue it. The question is how to implement it, and I hope the developers will consider it important enough to properly do. It has a big effect for any aircraft mounting armoured/thick glass, even if only the 190 appears to be in discussion.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not only a proven fact, it's a law of physics. It's ridiculous to even argue it. The question is how to implement it, and I hope the developers will consider it important enough to properly do. It has a big effect for any aircraft mounting armoured/thick glass, even if only the 190 appears to be in discussion.

absolutely!

Edited by VSG1_Winger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FuriousMeow, you are now on my ignore list. I have no interest in debating with people who can't be bothered to do even elementary research before spouting glib straw-man arguments.

 

+1. The level of ignorance displayed is quite breath-taking.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...