Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BlackSix

Developer Diary, Part 73

Recommended Posts

I think the most important thing is the feeling of flying the 190 needs to be the same as the real life counterpart. Looking at many of the videos taken from inside a 190 the window frame looks much thinner. Regardless of the cause for this effect can we all agree that the 90% of the time you will be looking out from within the cockpit so this view is the most important regarding the plane feeling like it did in real life. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how much the ingame cockpit matches the blueprits(The revi is obviously way too high).

But if the view from the cockpit doesn't match real life view than we can't say it's a realistic simulation now can we ?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

Umm......you do realise that 0.5 inches at 'in your face' range still just equals 0.5 inches at whatever range you're firing at? Whilst the light rays are 'shifted' by two angular changes due to refraction (air - glass - air), both rays are still parallel and no angular change takes place (the initial direction change is 'cancelled out' when the ray goes from glass to air, of course assuming parallel glass surfaces, and just talking about the area of the sight now). So an aiming shift of 0.5 inches at 200m......not such a big deal? Hardly going to make 'tracking difficult'!

 

I seems like you're not understanding the exact concept here.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It affects planes with thick and flat angled windscreens the most, apart from the 190, no plane has that in BoS.

 

But even the glass on the 109 caused a refraction discussion earlier this year, because it also has thick glas (F-4 with "mod", G-2), though at a much steeper angle.

 

And of course there is the lack of advantage which the flat windscreen on the La-5 could give you as opposed to the windscreen with curved panels if refraction would be modelled.

 

I don't think modelling refraction is really necessary, but if it doesn't get modelled, this has to be taken into account when modelling windscreens.

Edited by Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It affects planes with thick and flat angled windscreens the most, apart from the 190, no plane has that in BoS.

 

But even the glass on the 109 caused a refraction discussion earlier this year, because it also has thick glas (F-4 with "mod", G-2), though at a much steeper angle.

 

And of course there is the lack of advantage which the flat windscreen on the La-5 could give you as opposed to the windscreen with curved panels if refraction would be modelled.

 

I don't think modelling refraction is really necessary, but if it doesn't get modelled, this has to be taken into account when modelling windscreens.

Couldnt agree more. Leave the refractionmodeling aside and just reduce the barthickness by around 50% on ALL planes regardless the side now and for all future planes with panzerglass windshields.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldnt agree more. Leave the refractionmodeling aside and just reduce the barthickness by around 50% on ALL planes regardless the side now and for all future planes with panzerglass windshields.

 

+1000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

+2. Himself has been resulting wrong with his own proofs.  :rolleyes:  

 

Sorry for my bad english...

 

I had been observing this issue since fridays but I can't understand how this happened.

 

I had payed premium for this plane and now is ruined by such no-sense too thick frame and too high gunsight and pilot's viewpoint...

 

Cut the thickness of frames are the less problematic change and all people will applaud or others will no noted any problem. Stay like now only will demonstrate the  fault in to do a quality product.

 

And all this with the "bar" issue antecedent since 2001...

 

Look at the 109's bullet proof too, but that is no problem with me since I don't use that. Is optional and it's no offers advantages for my virtual life, like back armoured seat. The weapons are too powerful for make diference.

 

Now I have panic awaiting 5 august when DCS will be launch...  :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having a difficult time understanding how I landed on a ship despite refraction displacing the sight picture.

 

Cool image on the P40, the things you learn on this forum.

Edited by Victory205

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.

 

Good point Winger!  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compromise. Nobody does what they believe to be wrong, they may have regrets, and change their minds, but if they do so it would be to maintain their sense of rightness. Therefore compromise is a truly testing experience; human nature abhors a compromise: we argue because we are human.

 

The greatest artisans do what most of us cannot do; their virtues inspire us. Yet all artisans must come to a point where the project is concluded as finished. Even with their superior virtues, they must complete the process, and therefore face their own limitations... a compromise.

 

So the great and the good are tortured by their own perfection, before they face their 'adoring' human public. If Leonardo da Vinci had painted the Mona Lisa in weekly instalments before an adoring voting public on the 'X-Factor', it would have ended up looking like a tattooed slag, wearing a Hannibal Lecter mask; for the virtues of the customer are no match for those of the artisan, despite the former always being 'right' as an economic platitude. Economics is a compromise between perfection and food.

 

Simulation games are models of the 'real' world. They are not analytically true, for there are limits to maths and physics regarding the solutions to the 'real' world; models are a compromise by design.

 

Robert Watson-Watt famously said: "Perfection is the enemy of the good"; and he should know, for without his artisan virtues, you'd probably be reading this in 'perfect' German. It is enough for the self sacrifices of the artisans of this game, that they expose their own egos to their 'adoring' public in both a human and professional way, without the extra burden of the perfectionists, who themselves lack the virtues of creation, imposing their uncompromising 'correctness'. Compromise is unpleasant, but part of life; the question here is not that the debate be censored, but the perfectionists take a better measure of their own 'contributions' in relation to the rest of the community of customers and artisans. A pissed-off artisan compromises all of us; a pissed-off perfectionist customer only compromises a few intolerant egos.

 

I know who I want to win in this 'debate'; I wonder if the perfectionists know what they will 'win' if they get their wishes?

 

http://jimmygiro.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/happy-fishermans-day.html

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devs are aware of you being troubled with FW 190. If anything is to be changed in the current plane model, then it will be done. There have been enough complaints and, hmm, observations and investigations already. Please, calm down now and look at He 111 being modeled

 

0wsReMVX9Uc.jpg

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the most interesting pictures in this thread is the P-51 cockpit pic that shows the amount of refraction on the prop blade.  That is a significant shift and will throw aiming off.  It is also probably very hard to model.  The argument seems to come down to some reduction in the bars for the 190 (and maybe all planes) so we can see out better but to not show the full refraction effects.  In other words make it easier for us to see out.  I've got an even better idea:  bring back the wonder woman view and then we will all be able to see out just fine!  I think what the devs did here is a compromise to ease the view by shifting the pilot view  and the gunsight up enough so that we can see over the bar.  (Though this seems to have had the unintended consequence of cutting off some of the instruments-which can be rectified by moving the pilots head position back a tiny bit.)  Is it a perfect compromise?  No I don't think so.  Compromises are rarely perfect.  But I think it is a good one and I hope the devs stick to their guns.  Time for us to move along.

Edited by SYN_Mike77
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice pic of the Heinkel...

 

...but ....WHY is the right hand German cross smaller than the left hand one?

 

...maybe some kind of refractive effect?

 

;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having a difficult time understanding how I landed on a ship despite refraction displacing the sight picture.

 

Cool image on the P40, the things you learn on this forum.

Oh this is easy to explain!

I just run the math for you to explain you this.

Lets assume, the Frontwindof of the 190 is 60mm thick. So 6cm thick. I think this is quite right isn't it?

Now, lets assume we have an object with an angel of 58° infront of you.

Now I took for the refractive index of glas 1.5.

After I run the maths I came to the fact that the Object would be shiftet for round about 29mm. This is 2.9 centimetre. Thats not much, and guess what. This shift is based on the angel, the object is to the windshield. Now If we have an angel of 0° then, we wouldn't have any refraction. Now we have to take into account, that our Windshield not 90° from our cockpit but has a high leaning.

So an Object which is directly infront of the 190 might have an entrance angel from under 20°. Then we would have nearly no difference at all. If the angle is for example 10° from the lot, the shift would be only 3.5mm. You get it ?

 

For the german speaking guys, this will explain the effect of refraction in our case.

Edited by Auva

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?

Yes, wings are better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ZAK

 

HE looks gorgeous. Will be a pleasure to protect this beauty! Great work!

I am unsure about what you wrote. Do you say that actually when the next changes are being made to the plane the issue WILL be adressed or are you saying as much as "it will be adressed when it will be adressed and only then... maybe":)

Edited by VSG1_Winger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am unsure about what you wrote. Do you say that actually when the next changes are being made to the plane the issue WILL be adressed or are you saying as much as "it will be adressed when it will be adressed and only then... maybe":)

I can only tell that there's some movement in the certain corners of the studio, which may be a sign of some unplanned work at FW 190. It doesn't necessarily mean any evolution of the Zee Bar, but it it surely should give hope to those eager to see its windscreen changed. We'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HE 111 looks very nice. Will be a pleasure to shot down this beauty! Great work!  ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I met my wife at the Z-Bar. Lovely little disco!

Was that a case of mutual refraction?

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like something I saw on my screen door last night under the light of the porch lamp. Is it dangerous? ;) Nice work folks. Thanks and look forward to the He 111.

 

 

0wsReMVX9Uc.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that a case of mutual refraction?

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Thank goodness for some levity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Zak for the update on the 190.  And the  He 111 looks great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

Oh man....he-111 cockpit have many bars :unsure:

 

Heinkel_He_111_cockpit.jpg

 

Well, I think after the release, we should invite the Cockpit-Graphic-Designer to a Bar. Maybe they can get rid of the bar-Gene with a lot of beers... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that the cockpit of one of the Spanish jobbies?

I think that it is the CASA 2.111 that ended up in the united states - Spanish-built (and as such not a He 111 at all), and reequipped with merlin engines. See here for photos: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/WBP/mesacaf11.htm

 

For the benefit of those that don't know, this is what a standard He 111 cockpit looks like:

He111pit_zps2dfe0eb7.png

Edited by AndyJWest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that a case of mutual refraction?

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Yeah, I couldn't see her saying yes and she couldn't see herself without me ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it is the CASA 2.111 that ended up in the united states - Spanish-built (and as such not a He 111 at all), and reequipped with merlin engines. See here for photos: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/WBP/mesacaf11.htm

 

For the benefit of those that don't know, this is what a standard He 111 cockpit looks like:

He111pit_zps2dfe0eb7.png

Man that looks like the millennium Falcon.   Hope it does light speed to get out of range of those 37mils from the Lagg!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man that looks like the millennium Falcon.  

 

According to Wookieepedia (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Millennium_Falcon) the Falcon cockpit was based on the B-29. Whether the B-29 all-glazed cockpit was influenced by Luftwaffe bomber designs, or was just the simplest solution for a pressurised cockpit I don't know. I don't think that there is much room for doubt that George Lucas's space combat scenes were heavily influenced by earlier aerial warfare films.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing the things one can learn, in this thread. Thanks Zac, for giving us a look at the HE 111, looks great! Flew the latest patch, wow that was a quick fix, who ever that team member was, needs a pat on the back!


Also game loading times are good in this update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like others have said, I like the dev approach and controlling project creep. 

 

The 190 thing has enough ammo for the bar situation. Its a POV issue for the main part. The refraction thing has a role but POV is more impact. Also its not the fisheye / lens effect some are pointing out to be, as if refraction were an issue most warbirds would be seriously affected. Refraction does affect the view, but some people are really blowing it up and making it much more than it is. 

 

Still though thanks for the new bomber!!

 

I just hope the dev's answer will be realistic and even if the bar isn't to what one may like, maybe we can just play the game and people will accept it and carry on. After all, the il-2 old had a huge bar but lots of us were going on killing sprees with the bar included

 

 

 

 

 

from this 

 

 

Heinkel_He_111_cockpit.jpg

 

to this?

 

He111pit_zps2dfe0eb7.png

 

 

 

that's some serious refraction!

 

I think the bar movement argument is going to pale to the one that follows up the HE-111 bar and  whole pit refraction , anycase thanks for the update on the pit

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the hopeful news Zac, should keep the wolves at bay for a couple of days.

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...