Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BlackSix

Developer Diary, Part 73

Recommended Posts

F-yeah!  Cannot *wait* to get home tonight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, the Soviet style unified wheel brake seems to work on the 190, and makes throttling up then releasing the breaks easier.

56RAF_phoenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really nice to fly this, nice work. Beautiful aircraft.

 

It does kind of feel like you're looking through a 'channel' formed by the front windscreen side supports though, they seem really thick!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not buying the light refraction nonsense that was conveniently invented during the intense "bar" debates that surrounded the old Il-2 series.

Whether you ';buy into it' or not doesn't alter the fact that refraction is an unavoidable consequence of looking through a thick pane of glass at an angle. The laws of physics aren't optional...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally (and most will know this already) the tailwheel in the 190 is locked by pulling the stick hard back. It turns freely with the stick centred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just gave screenshots, they show the 190s nose immediately in front of the glass retaining structure.

 

Not buying the light refraction nonsense that was conveniently invented during the intense "bar" debates that surrounded the old Il-2 series.

 

I can even see the glass retaining structure in this picture that is from a POV lower than where the pilot sits. Yay "light refraction" idiocy!

attachicon.gif190cockpit.jpg

 

Erm, that 190 doesn't have the 30mm armoured glass and would not show the refraction at all.  Lol, now you are trying to claim that the laws of physics in relation to light refraction were only invented by IL2 Fw190 "bar" complainers.  I have heard it all now, here, go read about light refraction.

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/light_refraction.htm

 

There is a very nice diagram that shows an almost similar, yet unrelated example of how the Fw190 armoured glass refracted the pilots view in a possitive way.  The reason the Fw190 was more affected (in a positive way) by this refraction, is because the windscreen is at a far larger angle than on pretty much all other WWII fighters.  Essentially the refraction from the highly angled windscreen and the very thick armoured glass created a periscope effect.  Not a large one, but enough to eliminate any visibility of the bar and afford the pilot an unobstructed view of the top of the cowling.

Edited by ICDP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you ';buy into it' or not doesn't alter the fact that refraction is an unavoidable consequence of looking through a thick pane of glass at an angle. The laws of physics aren't optional...

 

Well, you do realise the laws of physics apply to cameras too? Because that picture up there, doesn't have the "light refraction." in it.

Erm, that 190 doesn't have the 30mm armoured glass and would not show the refraction at all.  Lol, now you are trying to claim that the physics of light refraction were only invented by IL2 Fw190 "bar" complainers.  I have heard it all now, here, go read about light refraction.

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/light_refraction.htm

 

There is a very nice diagram that shows an almost perfect axample of the Fw190 armoured glass setup.  The reason the Fw190 was more affected (in a positive way) by this refraction, is because the windscreen is at a far larger angle than on pretty much all other WWII fighters.

 

How do you know that 190 doesn't have armored glass in it? I know about light refraction, You can take a double pane window and do the same experiment. You'll still find you can see the entire double pane enclosure.

 

I've never seen a picture from the pilot's seat of a 190 showing this "light refraction" at such a small range through glass. A camera will show that, is there visual evidence of this?

 

You'll also find, in this screenshot I zoomed in - the MG bumps on the nose. You won't see anything other than the nose if the glass retention frame wasn't there.

post-9266-0-66010800-1406322798_thumb.jpg

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, the bar the bar the bar. :popcorm:

On every flight sim forum it is a never ending discussion. Since ages.

Do a Google search and you get instant hits (some from 2008 already) at Ubisoft, Mission4Today, 1C, Eagle Dynamics.

Before we start trying to convince each other with an overload of WWII images, videos and blueprints read through the 31 pages here:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=114702

Everything has been shown and discussed already. With the same images over and over again as seen on other sites in the past.

And at the end you still don't know a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g.

 

Unless someone with the average size of a German WWII pilot flies the Fw-190 with a camera mounted in front of his eyes.

 

Untill then It is like discussing the taste of chocolate while no one has tried it actually.

Edited by Uufflakke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah struggling with the tail wheel lock on the stick myself, anyway here's some screens.

post-16885-0-14894200-1406322656_thumb.jpg

post-16885-0-37976900-1406322673_thumb.jpg

post-16885-0-70305500-1406322693_thumb.jpg

post-16885-0-79566300-1406323230_thumb.jpg

post-16885-0-16890200-1406323243_thumb.jpg

post-16885-0-28703400-1406323301_thumb.jpg

Edited by WhiteEagle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, the bar the bar the bar. :popcorm:

On every flight sim forum it is a never ending discussion. Since ages.

Do a Google search and you get instant hits (some from 2008 already) at Ubisoft, Mission4Today, 1C, Eagle Dynamics.

Before we start trying to convince each other with an overload of WWII images, videos and blueprints read through the 31 pages here:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=114702

Everything has been shown and discussed already. With the same images over and over again as seen on other sites in the past.

And at the end you still don't know a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g.

 

Unless someone with the average size of a German WWII pilot flies the Fw-190 with a camera mounted in front of his eyes.

 

Untill then It is like discussing the taste of chocolate while no one has tried it actually.

 

Oh, it goes back further. I present to you - a bar from the year of 2000.

post-9266-0-10473600-1406322882_thumb.jpg

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, obviously a single vague snapshot (of what exactly? is that a FW 190, or a replica?) entirely disproves a central principle of optics.

 

Incidentally, without refraction, a camera lens wouldn't work anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of like tank vision ports in (for example) the commanders cupola - it seems like you're just looking right through the side of the cupola, but the actual viewpoint is higher because the glass is angled upwards (sort of paralelogram shaped, if I spelled that correctly), it's a very pronounced effect (as we all obviously know). I have actually sat in a 190, I don't remember the front windscreen bars (both sides and bottom) looking so big. I took a photo, I will try and dredge it up tomorrow. Anyway, I'm sure they've tried to get it authentic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, it goes back further. I present to you - a 2000 era bar.

attachicon.gifOh_Noes_TEH BAR.jpg

 

 

Lol! :biggrin:

Besides the bar discussion, according that screenshot graphics has not changed that much as they want us to make believe.

 

Talking about bars, time for a beer I would say. :drinks::drink2::crazy:

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, obviously a single vague snapshot (of what exactly? is that a FW 190, or a replica?) entirely disproves a central principle of optics.

 

Incidentally, without refraction, a camera lens wouldn't work anyway...

 

A camera would see the same refraction the eye does, it is still capturing the light after it passed through an, or several, objects.

 

Yes - that 190 shot is better than most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that picture indeed. And in modded IL2 the Fw-190 has that same "J" on it. :biggrin:

On the warning it should be "Im" and not "Jm". "Jm" is not a German word.

"Im" stands for "In dem" which means "In the" in English.

 

The image you show is from a Fw-190 which is restored in the U.S. 

http://www.milavnarc.com/focke-wulf_fw_190_photo_set_1.html#!

Probably the American restoration team is not familiar with German language. That could explain the error.

Well, I can't imagine the Fw-190 in the German museum I showed on page 2 has this kind of mistakes.

 

Maybe the reason lies here:

 

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schreibschrift#mediaviewer/Datei:Deutsche_normalschrift_ab_01091941.jpg

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schreibschrift#mediaviewer/Datei:La-ges.jpg

 

At least it's like I have learned it back in the early 90s in school. And there are indeed occasions of starting J instead of I like this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Street_sign_Inselplatz_Jena.JPG

 

 

Bis heute gibt es noch ältere Schreiber, die anstelle des Großbuchstabens I ein J verwenden (z. B. Jda, Jtalien). Auch bei serifenlosen Schriften wird manchmal ein großes J anstelle eines großen I gesetzt. Ein Grund dafür ist, dass bei derartigen Schriften das große I und das kleine L oft schwer unterscheidbar sind, vor allem wenn beide Buchstaben nebeneinanderstehen (etwa in Jller, Jlmenau, Jllustrierte im Unterschied zu Iller, Ilmenau, Illustrierte).

 

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/J#Verwendung_in_der_deutschen_Sprache

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know what to think about this all. If I was a test pilot of 190 prototype with front visibility as presented in BOS, I would suggest to the engineers to return back to the drawing boards. For example, one can look at this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HESIq6g1ODo, at the mark 8:20, and then shake his head in disbelief.

 

O.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you do realise the laws of physics apply to cameras too? Because that picture up there, doesn't have the "light refraction." in it.

 

How do you know that 190 doesn't have armored glass in it? I know about light refraction, You can take a double pane window and do the same experiment. You'll still find you can see the entire double pane enclosure.

 

I've never seen a picture from the pilot's seat of a 190 showing this "light refraction" at such a small range through glass. A camera will show that, is there visual evidence of this?

 

  1. Double glazing does not have anywhere near the same amount of refraction that a single thick piece of glass will show.  The thicker the glass the more the light slows, thereby increasing the refraction.
  2. That is a replica 190A as made by Flugwerk, it does not contain a ~60mm thick (IIRC) piece of glass, armoured or otherwise.
  3. This on the otherhand is a lovingly restored and genuine Fw190-A5 with a 60mm piece of tinted glass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V3TlPYL8Sw#t=225
  4. If you look carefully you will see the bar is almost invisible.  The refraction is clearly visible by comparing the side view to the view through the tinted glass.  Use perfectly straight lines as on roads or runways to compare with and without refraction.

Honestly, I am not worried about the bar being there because the sight is at least not half obsures ALA the original IL2.  I am posting this in response to your nonsense that tlight refraction was made up by old IL2 Fw190 bar complainers. :)

 

My main concern is the seriously overdone cockpit frames that block most of your peripheral vision. ;)

Edited by ICDP
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure is a purdy bird. I'm noticing how nicely the panel lines match up on the BoS airplanes. Such a big, but almost unnoticed improvement over the original IL-2.

 

 

Oh no, please not, I mean **** yeah Focke Wulf 190 but the bar... the baaaaar... pleaaase nooooo

Such big boy language! Why not leave that crud on Youtube where the other 14 year olds hang out?

Edited by Rjel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  1. Double glazing does not have anywhere near the same amount of refraction that a single thick piece of glass will show.  The thicker the glass the more the light slows, thereby increasing the refraction.
  2. That is a replica 190A as made by Flugwerk, it does not contain a ~60mm thick piece of glass, armoured or otherwise.
  3. This on the otherhand is a lovingly restored and genuine Fw190-A5 with a 60mm piece of tinted glass.
  4. If you look carefully you will see the bar is almost invisible.  The refraction is clearly visible by comparing the side view to the view through the tinted glass.  Use perfectly straight lines as on roads or runways to compare with and without refraction.

Honestly, I am not worried about the bar being there because the sight is at least not half obsures ALA the original IL2.  I am posting this in response to your nonsense that tlight refraction was made up by old IL2 Fw190 bar complainers. :)

 

My main concern is the seriously overdone cockpit frames that block most of your peripheral vision. ;)

 

 

Even if they can't model refraction in game they should thin the "bars" to give the appearance of it

Edited by driftaholic
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who think "I can't taxi this thing!" - the tailwheel locks on pulling the stick.

Astounding realism in the details devs!

Does it really work? Tried it, but I didn't see any difference... so I'll have a closer look again :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At 2:37 of the movie ICDP linked you get a fairly good view of "through the gunsight height view of the pilot (not top of the head camera angle) Not a very "well stocked bar" there to be seen.  :P

Edited by TJT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bis heute gibt es noch ältere Schreiber, die anstelle des Großbuchstabens I ein J verwenden (z. B. Jda, Jtalien). Auch bei serifenlosen Schriften wird manchmal ein großes J anstelle eines großen I gesetzt. Ein Grund dafür ist, dass bei derartigen Schriften das große I und das kleine L oft schwer unterscheidbar sind, vor allem wenn beide Buchstaben nebeneinanderstehen (etwa in Jller, Jlmenau, Jllustrierte im Unterschied zu Iller, Ilmenau, Illustrierte).

 

 

That would be true indeed if there was some confusion between the capital I (of, for instance, Insel) and small "L" (of, for instance, langweilig) but that is not the case in the word "Im".

Anyway, I quit discussing the linguistic part just like the cockpit bar discussion. It starts to get a bit ridiculous for my feeling.

I've never flew an authentic Fw-190 plane so who am I to know it better anyway. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I have to agree with Silverback here. Even with the locked tailwheel and minimal thrust and speed the torque effect to the left is way overdone. Even full right rudder can't counter that sufficiently ... I have to hit the right wheelbrake (very carefully) to even stay on the runway. This does indeed need work.

 

Try 12:30 prop pitch... had the same issue with the La-5 with coarse pitch.

 

And now I've noticed it, the tailwheel really locks by just pulling the stick back. Awesome.

 

And for anyone who is still in doubt regarding the bar, yes it's there, but it's no obstacle. Here's a shot taken from low level "terrain following" flight to see how good the view is even with the bar, and especially due to the nose down flight attitude:

 

post-12047-0-90803400-1406326281_thumb.jpg

 

It couldn't be better except for adding refraction modeling - but it's not really necessary. I can't complain :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  1. Double glazing does not have anywhere near the same amount of refraction that a single thick piece of glass will show.  The thicker the glass the more the light slows, thereby increasing the refraction.
  2. That is a replica 190A as made by Flugwerk, it does not contain a ~60mm thick (IIRC) piece of glass, armoured or otherwise.
  3. This on the otherhand is a lovingly restored and genuine Fw190-A5 with a 60mm piece of tinted glass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V3TlPYL8Sw#t=225
  4. If you look carefully you will see the bar is almost invisible.  The refraction is clearly visible by comparing the side view to the view through the tinted glass.  Use perfectly straight lines as on roads or runways to compare with and without refraction.

Honestly, I am not worried about the bar being there because the sight is at least not half obsures ALA the original IL2.  I am posting this in response to your nonsense that tlight refraction was made up by old IL2 Fw190 bar complainers. :)

 

My main concern is the seriously overdone cockpit frames that block most of your peripheral vision. ;)

 

 

Wow, it went from 30mm thick to 60mm thick glass in a single post. The viewpoint is also well above the pilot's line of sight - it was on top of his head. That offers nothing. Yes, the light refraction was invented by the old Il-2 complainers - that was the FIRST TIME it ever happened. The 190's frame has been evident in every single WWII title the very first WarBirds - it only became "light refraction" with Il-2. There have been zero pictures from inside the cockpit with the armored glass installed showing this light refraction phenomena - zero. And again, doesn't matter. Bar gone? You see the nose right there. You can see for yourself in game by changing the viewpoint, no trickery of light refraction - the nose is right there.

 

Look at the external view of the 190 in-game, you think the cockpit frame won't be that thick?

Edited by FuriousMeow

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, the Soviet style unified wheel brake seems to work on the 190, and makes throttling up then releasing the breaks easier.

56RAF_phoenix

 

Works in all planes the same, but the Soviet design has differential brakes linked to the rudder, the German ones don't, so you'll just press both brake pedals at the same time with the Soviet brake axis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At 2:37 of the movie ICDP linked you get a fairly good view of "through the gunsight height view of the pilot (not top of the head camera angle) Not a very "well stocked bar" there to be seen.  :P

 

That is so not through the gunsight, what are you looking at?

post-9266-0-56266100-1406326857_thumb.jpg

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is so not through the gunsight, what are you lookiing at?

 

Yes it actually is through the gunsight, go look again at 2:37 on the video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was wrong, thought it was 2:27 - but that still isn't through the gunsight at 2:37.

 

This is as close as I can get it using TiR.

post-9266-0-87263600-1406327425_thumb.jpg post-9266-0-11099200-1406327415_thumb.jpg post-9266-0-45049700-1406327587_thumb.jpg

 

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, it went from 30mm thick to 60mm thick glass in a single post. The viewpoint is also well above the pilot's line of sight - it was on top of his head. That offers nothing. Yes, the light refraction was invented by the old Il-2 complainers - that was the FIRST TIME it ever happened. The 190's frame has been evident in every single WWII title the very first WarBirds - it only became "light refraction" with Il-2. There have been zero pictures from inside the cockpit with the armored glass installed showing this light refraction phenomena - zero. And again, doesn't matter. Bar gone? You see the nose right there. You can see for yourself in game by changing the viewpoint, no trickery of light refraction - the nose is right there.

 

Look at the external view of the 190 in-game, you think the cockpit frame won't be that thick?

 

I made a mistake on the armoured glass thickness and corrected it, that does not make my poin invalid.  Watch the entire video, there are a few times when the camera view is right through the gunsight and the bar is barely visible.  I just linked a video from a genuine, perfectly restored honest to God Fw190-a5 with the 60mm glass windshield installed.  The video perfectly demonstrated the light refraction I am referring to.  You are not helping yourself by claiming the physics of light refraction were invented by the IL2 bar complainers.

 

P.S.  Just because every other game modelled the bar incorrectly does not make it right.

Was wrong, thought it was 2:27 - but that still isn't through the gunsight at 2:37.

 

What?  At 3:37 (and 1:08) we get a good view directly through the revi glass.  You really aren't doing yourself any favours here :)

Edited by ICDP
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What?  At 3:37 (and 1:08) we get a good view directly through the revi glass.  You really aren't doing yourself any favours here :)

 

You said 2:37, so did TJT - that is not 3:37 - that is 2:37 and that is not through the gunsight. Screenshot above. Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One short burst and both wings of FW 190 are shot off.

Guns are too powerfull or planes are too weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said 2:37, so did TJT - that is not 3:37 - that is 2:37 and that is not through the gunsight. Screenshot above. Enjoy.

 

I think I have met my first genuine internet idiot ROFL :D

 

Oh no, I got a number wrong when referring to a location on a video clip, that makes my entire argument invalid.  It also renders the laws of physics and light refraction irrelevant.  You are really giving me a good laugh tonight, thanks.  It has been weeks since I interacted with a genuine [redacted] on a web forum. :)

 

You just posted a screenshot with a view throught the gunsight.  See that square glass thingy, that's a gunsight and yes, you can see stuff through it.  Also your comparison shot from ingame shows perferctly the problem that ignoring light refraction has done for the 190 cockpit framing. ROFL :P

Edited by ICDP
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't agree. Especially the side mounted front braces look far too thick limiting the sideward visebility too much and on most pictures I've seen from the 190 the lower brace is way mor angked downward to not interferr with pilots FoV.

 

I've dealt with this issue in War Thunder very intensively ressearching about those cockpits for weeks and put some nice comparisons up there, BoS might need this comunity effort as well (unfortunately).

 

But only if they put as much effort into the bad forward view of the La5. Otherwises I'd say: Luftwhiners :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have met my first genuine internet idiot ROFL :D

 

Of course, except you said 2:37. So did TJT. So, I was ten seconds off - you are a full minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you aren't doing yourself any favours. If you want people to take you seriously then act accordingly.

 

(That ninja edit) 

Edited by Hal

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...