Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BlackSix

Developer Diary, Part 73

Recommended Posts

 

 

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. 

 

Nah - it's pretty straightforward and easily illustrated.

Look here

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/8185-developer-diary-part-73/page-13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zak, could you look into lower instrument panel visibility issue later?

 

Because currently it modeled bit higher than normal I think...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haaaaaa This discussion about FOV / pilot eyes positions/ The correct 3D in the cockpit at the right place.. It remind me a very good subject demonstrate by me to each aircraft made.  This is a discussion that started years ago.. Haa If only they would listen to me at the time   ;) the 3D cockpit is an easy fix  every 3D problems in the 3D model are an easy fix and placing the correct pilot position according to each aircraft an easy task for th emoment there are not too many aircraft less trouble some that 200 like in 1946 IL2   ;)  In RoF you can can tweak this which is good.. but many 3D of gun sights and dimension are incorrect.  Anyway this is an easy fix but if many of you fantastic members that have the passions of the flight sim and Aviation please show the good documentations for the Dev team to follow the correct way now not later.  You passionate people/members and Dev that make a Sim live and interesting Thank you so much...

Edited by GOZR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Lucas has been quoted as saying he studied WWII gun camera film for the battle scenes in the original Star Wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More specifically he studied the 1969 film Battle of Britain. That's why his spaceships all fly the same way up etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Suprisingly at the same time USA developed the B-29 germans started working on the Me 264 prototype, which took off in 1941 (1 week before the first B-29). The similarities are amazing:

                                                                                             Me 264                                                                                                                                                                       

messerschmitt-me264-amerika-v1.jpg    

   

                                                                             B-29

6034325109_aa76096836_z.jpg

 

Not sure if there was any secret documents shifted between both influrence the development of such similar designs simultaneously....even purpose wise, the B-29 should nuke Berlin while the Me 264 was meant to nuke New York.

Edited by [Jg26]5tuk4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suprisingly at the same time USA developed the B-29 germans started working on the Me 264 prototype, which took off in 1941 (1 week before the first B-29). The similarities are amazing:

                                                                                             Me

Not sure if there was any secret documents shifted between both influrence the development of such similar designs simultaneously....even purpose wise, the B-29 should nuke Berlin while the Me 264 was meant to nuke New York.

Except one was an amazingly successful production A/C and the other a hanger queen. Other than that, same thing. ;)

Edited by Rjel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure they had great issues extending the Me 264 range to US and back, also the german atomic bomb project came to a hold already.

 

There were planes by Messerschmitt to fit it with additional jet engines making it a hybrid design which may had proven viable if the RLM gave it more attention. Also the Fw 191 and He 277 showed great potential, though none of those was ever produced in high enought numbers to play any significant role.

 

Considering the great lack of industrial focre and ressources compared to the US it's an even more remarkable development in my opinion.

Edited by [Jg26]5tuk4

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.

 

Any word on the almost hidden lower instrument panel? It's definately a very big error in the 3D model. All people stare at the bars again... they probably don't have TIR yet :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 Also why is the Revi located too high in the cockpit? ALL pictures have shown it is located lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 Also why is the Revi located too high in the cockpit? ALL pictures have shown it is located lower.

 

Otherwise all that you could see was the "bar".

 

 

Any word on the almost hidden lower instrument panel? It's definately a very big error in the 3D model. All people stare at the bars again... they probably don't have TIR yet  :biggrin:

 

But also the top bar is weird. You can check it here: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/2091-graphics-models-and-maps/page-8?do=findComment&comment=140813

Edited by 6S.Manu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucas has been quoted as saying he studied WWII gun camera film for the battle scenes in the original Star Wars.

 

On the other side, after Star Wars all Hollywood movies about WWII planes have "flight model"  based on Star Wars Tie Fighters (e.g. P. Harbor, F. Boys, R.Baron, R.Tails...) :)

 

Sokol1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if there was any secret documents shifted between both influrence the development of such similar designs simultaneously....even purpose wise, the B-29 should nuke Berlin while the Me 264 was meant to nuke New York.

 

Development on the B-29 actually started pre-ww2, and the earliest proposals out of Boeing displayed a fully glazed nose. These designs pre-date pearl harbor by a healthy amount.

 

 

A bunch of posts

 

Can you please stop taking this subject way off base? If you want to argue about basic physics, then take it into a new dedicated thread. Please don't mess up the official discussion with arguments over minutia and wording of other peoples posts.

 

Don't make it a repeat of the time when you argued that cockpit instruments shouldn't have any kind of reflections  ;)

Edited by LizLemon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These designs pre-date pearl harbor by a healthy amount.

 

So did WW2.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done, Voidhunger! And excellent graphics of the game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done, Voidhunger! And excellent graphics of the game!

 

its not my video and not my work, its a Velikie Luki map community project.

I have taken it from official facebook page of BOS

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, ok! Then a "well done" goes to the producers of this vid! And a "well done" to you for posting it here! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This would be a reasonable compromise with wich i think everyone could live.

 

Not me. I'd rather have the correct 3D dimensions than a hacked-up model with thinner frames.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not me. I'd rather have the correct 3D dimensions than a hacked-up model with thinner frames.   

Which we don't have either at the moment. Revi too high, the gap is missing. Head Position too high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quite excited to see what we'll be getting today. I actually prefer not knowing until the Friday. Like Christmas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not me. I'd rather have the correct 3D dimensions than a hacked-up model with thinner frames.   

 

I'd rather have a realistic view than a correct 3D model that looks hacked up to have too-thick frames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind external and internal models are seperated...you can easily find this out by comparing the gunsight position when spectating it in 3rd person (hint was given by another person).

 

While the pilot would enjoy an "accurate" forward visibility, correct FoV and head psotition comfortable enought to read all gauges on the lower instrument panel any other player wouldn't see any difference.

 

Also - for very hardcore guys - it might be possible to cover some parts of the external cockpit bars with "one-way" textures, which should visiually extend the bar size when spectated form outside the cockpit but invisible inside of it (don't ask me hwo it works specificly pls but it shouldn't be black magic).

 

And with the focus of BoS being on dogfighting, navigation and ground attack missions an unobscured frontward view and easily visible instruments are more important than the blueprint copied framework and moved FoV to me.

Edited by [Jg26]5tuk4
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there we have it. They can't please everyone. I hope that, if a change is made, it will be a compromise which will keep everyone as happy as they can be.

Good luck devs.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the sound of it, even the rivet counters wouldn't be overly upset if the the internal model was slightly modified. Most simmers, IMHO, would welcome an internal view which closely reflects what the real life pilots would have seen from the cockpit. So, I do think most or even almost all would be satisfied with an internal modification and a true to blueprint external model. It's a better compromise than the one selected which satisfies almost no one at this point.

 

*emphasis on almost - each time it was used above. Ya can't please everyone...................almost ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also share tuk's opinion. It would solve all problems...

 

Same here!

 

I´d payed premium for a quality FW190 and I have a horrid cockpit view...

 

I'm sit in a FW190 cockpit or in Panzer IV driver seat?????  :dry:   :ph34r:

Edited by Siegfried

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that anyone who "can't live" with a feature in a computer game should go seek psychological help. :o:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that anyone who "can't live" with a feature in a computer game should go seek psychological help. :o:

Really a necessary commentary?  I think you knowh how it was meant and the little troll in you got the upper hand for a little moment? :) No offense intended!! Just joking around.

I'd rather have a realistic, unimpeded view with the frames made thinner than in RL.

With this alteration the model wouldn't look wrong, it would just look how it would look in RL with correct refractive glass in place.

This! Correcting the view from the pilotseat doesnt mean that the outside model will have to be changed as well. Those are two diffrent things (the model you see as a pilot and the one others from the outside get to see).

Edited by VSG1_Winger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really a necessary commentary?  I think you know how it was meant and the little troll in you got the upper hand for a little moment? :)

No and absolutely. :blush:

 

Would "Oh, the drama! :rolleyes: " have been better?

Edited by JtD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said life will end? Guess what, I could easily live with if BoS becomes a complete failure ;) People discussing plenty of topics about this sim within the last 1.5 years, not only the Focke cockpit and in the end it will be a win win situation, for the producers as well as for the costumers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm personally annoyed that people are having the devs change the cockpits of planes just because they don't like the canopy frames in the way.

 

I myself like it.

 

BTW Bing is your friend.

 

    heinkel-he-111-bomber-cockpit-01.png

Edited by GojiraAlpha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, I wouldn't want to go into combat in that thing. The panel obstructs the direction of your flightpath when maneuvering.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, I wouldn't want to go into combat in that thing. The panel obstructs the direction of your flightpath when maneuvering.

Not to mention the fact that it doesn't look particularly bulletproof either..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be hiding behind the bombardier. 

If it's a 20mm round you're gonna run out of crew pretty quickly with that tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may a mistake in the game and there should be J instead of I.

We'll check it and fix it if it's a bug.

Thanks for you vigilance.

 

I think this guy does not agree:  :)

post-50-0-05152000-1407176161.jpg

 

Sokol1

  • Upvote 1

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...