Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BlackSix

Developer Diary, Part 73

Recommended Posts

I suggest you complain to Kurt Tank - or possibly the person responsible for what looks to me to be a replica.

 

(and for the rest of you, note that this drawing clearly indicates how refraction raises the apparent sight line.)

 

Fw190RSL_zps7ec27af3.jpg

 

Yes Andy we have seen these diagrams before in the never ending discussion, If you want to reference THIS diagram have a look at where the top of the Revi site  wrt the coaming line. Also extend the coaming line to where it would intersect the from Armour glass. .... The BOS FW190 is nothing like that. the edge of the armour glass extends way above the coaming line, The BOS FW Revi sits periscope like above the coaming ... as posted in the other thread what it should look like:

 

fwbarglass_zpsacf5328b.jpg

 

Fwbarz_zpsfa3433cf.jpg

 

fw190a5_cockpit_zps669223f4.jpg

 

So the BOS FW190 Coaming area looks nothing like MR Tanks rendition. Yet again the 3D modellers create something that just doesnt agree with the historical pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by FuriousMeow

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.

attachicon.gifThrough_the_Gunsight_que.jpg attachicon.gif190_237_compare.jpg attachicon.gifcloser.jpg

 

Wow, that is as graphic evidence as you need for the light refraction affecting how the bars on the sides are perceived (and the lower bare, but it's slightly smaller anyway, so the effect is less apparent) - it's chrystal clear that they seem smaller when actually looking through the real thing!

 

Also, as I said, consider tank/armoured vehicle viewports - their entire principal is founded on this concept.

 

In game, there is no way we could realistically expect refraction to be modelled - rendering another view to do this would cost too much in performance. They could thin the bars to match the perception from the cockpit though.

 

Seriously, apart from the pictures from FM above, I fly real aircraft with 'armoured' glass windscreens - don't laugh, they really are - against birdstrikes! I forget the exact thickness of the B737 windscreen, but it are three layers of glass/polycarbonate (going from memory, don't shoot me!) and you can clearly see the refraction effect if you open the side window and run you hand over the windscreen - the glass seems quite thin when looking through it, but your bodies knowledge of your hand position reveals just how thick it actually is.

 

I've had a bird smack RIGHT on my windshield before, big noise (bit of a shock too, especially for the bird) but no damage. Also had an outer pane crack to thermal stress - the electrical heating mesh inside the windscreen started to arc, and had to be turned off - the temperature change meant the glass fractured after about five minutes, it's a thick chunk of glass and can't handle being suddenly cold. Luckily it still holds together with the other laminated layers.

 

But really - looking through a thick chunk of glass makes your viewpoint seem as if it's closer to the 'outside' layer as it were. I see it every day.

 

And in BOS, it's not the lower bar thats the problem - the nose will get in the way to a degree anyway - it's those massive side bars. The laws of physics say you REALLY wouldn't see all of their depth.

Edited by ARM505
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....but this debate will rage on :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I apologise for my terrible grammar, some spelling errors. Just woke up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Ah yes, the straw man argument. Favourite refuge of  the wilfully ignorant. Go away and do some research on the effects refraction through transparent materials with parallel surfaces, and then come back when you have a clue...

 

Refraction_photo.png

Edited by AndyJWest
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not through the gunsight. If it were through the gunsight, you'd have the reticle there. Notice how when I am off-center in-game there is no reticle? That's not through the gunsight. Light refraction won't just impact the metal frame holding the glass in place - it will impact every single object viewed through it. So now you'd have planes passing from the left and right panes, and then suddenly 10 or so degrees lower when passing through the front amored screen. Yeah, that makes sense. That is why the light refraction nonsense is just that.

 

It's clear what sort of person ICDP is, not worth it. Very wrong, and chooses to resort to insults. I'll see you in the sky and don't get fooled by the 190's 60mm glass, that isn't the light refracting the tracers - they are going to hit you in the face.

 

  1. Of course it is through the gunsight, the fact the revi is turned off is why you don't see the reticle.
  2. Here is a photo still from that youtube video clip of a real Fw190 with the 60mm Armoured glass windshield.
  3. Note that I have drawn yellow lines to indicate the gunsight glass.  It is obvious we are looking directly through the glass with the revi reticle turned off.
  4. I have also drawn some red lines on the runway markings to show how much refraction is occuring through the armoured glass.  The blue lines indicate where the lines are continuing behind the cockpit frames.  Obviously they should meet up at the exact same point as the lines throught the armoured glass (tinted green),
  5. The reason they don't is called light refraction.  The thin side windows do not refract the light as much as the thick armoured glass windshield.
  6. Go ahead, keep insisting that there is no light refraction through a 60mm thick highly angled windshield on an Fw190.  Even with photo and video evidence mounting against you.

post-13160-0-03890100-1406356916_thumb.jpg

Edited by ICDP
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that image from a wide angle video camera? The limes you drew don't match the runway, which appears to be curved by the camera's lens distortion.

 

However, that's not the issue. In fact, I'm not sure what this debate is about. Are you saying that the angled windscreen would displace the actual target location, thereby making accurate gun tracking more difficult? Any error that might exist is removed by the process of bore sighting and live firing the guns using the reflector sight in situ isn't it?

 

Same thing is done today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone really thing they're going to completely remodel the cockpit because of bar-whining? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that image from a wide angle video camera? The limes you drew don't match the runway, which appears to be curved by the camera's lens distortion.

 

However, that's not the issue. In fact, I'm not sure what this debate is about. Are you saying that the angled windscreen would displace the actual target location, thereby making accurate gun tracking more difficult? Any error that might exist is removed by the process of bore sighting and live firing the guns using the reflector sight in situ isn't it?

 

Same thing is done today.

 

Yes it is a wide angle lense but the refraction is still clearly visible.  I have added green lines through the armoured glass to show how much the refractions has impacted the view.  This has been a problem for pilots since canaopys were introduced.  Many times pilots complained about curved glass or highly angled glass distorting their actual view.  In the case of the Fw190 the refraction actually gave the pilot an advantage of being able to see right doen the nose.  Without the armoured glass refracting the light he would see mostly bar. :)

post-13160-0-38899300-1406361266_thumb.jpg

Edited by ICDP
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that image from a wide angle video camera? The limes you drew don't match the runway, which appears to be curved by the camera's lens distortion.

 

However, that's not the issue. In fact, I'm not sure what this debate is about. Are you saying that the angled windscreen would displace the actual target location, thereby making accurate gun tracking more difficult? Any error that might exist is removed by the process of bore sighting and live firing the guns using the reflector sight in situ isn't it?

 

Same thing is done today.

 

Exactly, V205. Wide angle lens. An immutable law of "Bar-dynamics": nobody ever proves anything.

 

But in all honesty, I can't understand what people are getting so het up about. I'm even confused about who's pro-BoS cockpit and who's anti-BoS cockpit. Bar? The cockpit's a sodding work of art. The gunsight is clear and unobstructed, from what I can see. And the canopy frame? Live with it! Get used to it! I didn't fly the 109G for a few weeks because the frame annoyed me. I preferred the F. But then I tried it properly, and then I got used to it.

 

[Grumbles to self: bleedin' Luftw.....]  :happy:

 

[Edit: Curves, ICDP, think curves! Redraw your coloured lines!  :salute: ]

Edited by No601_Swallow
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, V205. Wide angle lens. An immutable law of "Bar-dynamics": nobody ever proves anything.

 

But in all honesty, I can't understand what people are getting so het up about. I'm even confused about who's pro-BoS cockpit and who's anti-BoS cockpit. Bar? The cockpit's a sodding work of art. The gunsight is clear and unobstructed, from what I can see. And the canopy frame? Live with it! Get used to it! I didn't fly the 109G for a few weeks because the frame annoyed me. I preferred the F. But then I tried it properly, and then I got used to it.

 

[Grumbles to self: bleedin' Luftw.....]  :happy:

 

OK, how about a nice narrow angle lense photo of a P-51D cockpit.  The thick armoured glass is set at a very high angle and as this photos shows creates quite a lot of refraction.  Look at the prop blade on the right, not how much it is refracted when viewed throught the armoured windshield compared to the normal plexiglass at the cockpit side.  This is the exact same effect that is seen on the Fw190 and any other aircraft with a thick armoured windshield mounted at an extreme angle.

post-13160-0-85653700-1406361702_thumb.jpg

Edited by ICDP
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish they'd done the I-16 instead...just to have avoided this ****storm. In fact the Bachem Natter would have been preferable.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont give a F*¨** about the damm Bar, I mean, we have a really nice aircraft! with really nice details, like the tailwheel lock with the stick, the beautifull 3D model, etc.

 

Why you dont please shut up and enjoy the plane? Who cares about a damm bar?

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont give a F*¨** about the damm Bar, I mean, we have a really nice aircraft! with really nice details, like the tailwheel lock with the stick, the beautifull 3D model, etc.

 

Why you dont please shut up and enjoy the plane? Who cares about a damm bar?

 

+1000  (I don not understand that bar problem!!!!)

 

Thanks a lot dev's!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

Edited by C6_Pips

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way around this is to never fall below the in game frame lock.  So setting the frame lock at 30 will stop the stutters.  Not enjoyable but it's a fix to the problem.

 

I'll try 60... would be the same with activated VSync, so what :D

It's set to unlimited now. My FRAPS always shows like 60-70fps even while it stutters.

 

Many of us are not having that problem - runs fine for me.

What card are you running?

 

Check my spoiler :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you elighten me on how this works? :)

 

By the way, it's the Messerschmitt Bayerische Flugzeugwerke 109. Bf was bought by Messerschmitt, but the model was still the Bf design. So it remains the Bf-109.

 

Actually they just renamed the company because of Messerschmidt becoming the CEO after winning some contests with the 108 and 109. That happened on July 11, 1938. All planes developed until then officially kept the Bf- prefix, like the 109 and 110. All new planes were named Me- then like the 262 or 163. But not just documentaries, but also even official documents from the 40s say "Me 109" sometimes, like a climb speed chart of "Me 109G" that comes from the company. Just see my attachment :)

post-12047-0-13599100-1406367576_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in all honesty, I can't understand what people are getting so het up about. I'm even confused about who's pro-BoS cockpit and who's anti-BoS cockpit. Bar? The cockpit's a sodding work of art. The gunsight is clear and unobstructed, from what I can see. And the canopy frame? Live with it! Get used to it! I didn't fly the 109G for a few weeks because the frame annoyed me. I preferred the F. But then I tried it properly, and then I got used to it.

I agree the 190 cockpit looks great but some will never be happy and it's the some of the same old faces that have moved from sim to sim over the years, a group of Luftwaffe fans that are never content - the Luftwhiners. Strangely though they were silent when the Warbirds 109 had an unlimited ammo bug or the WWIIOL 109 that effectively had a third wing for a long long time. I have a love hate relationship with the 190, but it's my bad flying not any bar getting in the way but I'll keep flying and try and improve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone really thing they're going to completely remodel the cockpit because of bar-whining? Really?

 

I hope they don't. I'd rather just have a refraction filter in. Half Life 2 had it 10 years ago rendered in real time even on morphing liquid surfaces, so it's definately possible.

 

What bugs me more is the fact that the lower gauges are halfway hidden while they shouldn't. Just compare these photos with the screenshots I've taken. The border of the main panel obstructs the lower panel much more in BoS than IRL, something's clearly off there.

 

Fwbarz_zpsfa3433cf.jpg

 

fw190a5_cockpit_zps669223f4.jpg

 

post-12047-0-26999100-1406369360_thumb.jpg

 

post-12047-0-40519700-1406369372_thumb.jpg

 

post-12047-0-63044400-1406369381_thumb.jpg

  • Upvote 2

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.

 

Thanks.

 

Best thing is to go back to the source and not relying on restored planes, Fw-190 in other sims or movies.

So I searched the web to find WWII images of armoured plates of the Fw-190. Found a few images of Luftwaffe pilots in their Fw cockpit but unfortunately quality was too low  to decipher text.

Finally found an armoured plate in its original state and there seems to be a J on it indeed.

 

Fw_190_Armoured_Plate.jpg

print screen windows xp

 

After increasing sharpness and changing contrast it becomes somewhat clearer.

 

Fw_190_Detail.jpg

upload a picture

 

 

Perhaps the Aviation museum in Hannover is wrong with its restored plate of the Fw-190?

 

Fw_190_Armoured_Plate_Restored.jpg

how to use print screen

Edited by Uufflakke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are all absolutely correct.  We should all be thankful that we have a joystick controlled tail wheel lock and a nice external model.  An inaccurately modelled cockpit is not even remotely high on the list of things we should expect in 2014. :rolleyes:

Edited by SYN_Haashashin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another (minor) point is about the gunsight: the Fw190A-3 (and up to at least the A-6) had a Revi 12C/D with the crashpad, not without. They removed the pad on the later series, when the panel lip on the top was shortened.

 

My Revi 12C/D comes from a Fw190a5 or 6, and it defo has the crashpad installed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now for something completely different...

 

I'm sure someone will come along and tell me it's been like this all along, but it seems the snow has some depth to it now. I've not seen it to this degree before.

 

2014_7_26__0_43_52_zps38e535a4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I dont give a F*¨** about the damm Bar, I mean, we have a really nice aircraft! with really nice details, like the tailwheel lock with the stick, the beautifull 3D model, etc.   Why you dont please shut up and enjoy the plane? Who cares about a damm bar?

 

 

 

OK, step back and think?

We call this a simulator, many times discussing, and arguing about detail and accuracy. Much of which can not be proven either way.

 

Yet in this case we have actual visual evidence, and if necessary can mathematically calculate what the view thru the armor glass should be, and people respond as above.

 

If this is a simulator, then the degree of importance should not depend on your individual opinion, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, step back and think?

We call this a simulator, many times discussing, and arguing about detail and accuracy. Much of which can not be proven either way.

 

Yet in this case we have actual visual evidence, and if necessary can mathematically calculate what the view thru the armor glass should be, and people respond as above.

 

If this is a simulator, then the degree of importance should not depend on your individual opinion, yes?

 

You are totally right, we want the best detail and accuracy, of course, and yes, I am the first who want that, but this is something else, this discussion started long ago, 5 or 6 years if I can remember correctly, even in the DCS title Dora, the things are like this, I mean, I dont Know if there was Bar or not, I would like to have the correct version yes, but this too much for a Bar, because this is gonna start here, and gonna end with Bans and trheads being closed.

 

I have an individual opinion that I would like to share, I also defend and respect your opinion till the death and your rights to share it, because not everybody is the same or wants the same and everybody have the rights to post his opinion, but I am not gonna defend a Storm of pages and pages about the bar(From both sides), it is better to move along already, the devs will choose to change it or not, I dont mind. I am just telling that I am bored of this everytime a Focke hits the Sim theater.

Edited by Manu_vc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand, the discussions have been relentless over the years, but my view is that this is a dead horse that should have never been killed in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand, the discussions have been relentless over the years, but my view is that this is a dead horse that should have never been killed in the first place.

Yes, I think that too, and you are correct, if it was wrong it should have been fixed years ago, but I dont know if it was or not, So I just dont wanna start the forum storm  another time. Sorry if I was rude or my comment sounded bad to you or someone else, I just triying to make this Forum a better place to post, because seeing how is this sim is growing, this is gonna be our home long time  :biggrin:

Edited by Manu_vc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone noticed that the gun sight is mounted way higher than the real one you see in the pictures? Also it seems that the the virtual sight line is to high, therefore you can't see all the instruments when in the standard position. These two things could be related to the thickness of the bar. Since they had to compensate for it, they had to elevate the gun sight and of course raise the head position accordingly.

 

Apart from that, the 190 feels very good in the air. It's very stable and nice to fly. Also the elevator stiffness at high speeds is realistic. From what I have read about it's flight characteristics, this model seems to come very close.

 

Well done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AhyUYOM.jpg

 

Revi with normal position. (Sorry for poor Photoshop  ;) )

 

 

 

MrD6fgw.jpg

 

Lower instrument panel modeling error

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Apart from that, the 190 feels very good in the air. It's very stable and nice to fly. Also the elevator stiffness at high speeds is realistic. From what I have read about it's flight characteristics, this model seems to come very close.

 

Well done!

 

Yes now is time to correct other BOS planes to FW 190 standart i mean:

- maximum dive speeds ( russian planes have too high maximum safe dive speeds)

- roll rates

- controls effectivness at high speeds

- maximum level speeds

 

 

Then maby FW 190 will show its teeth

Edited by Kwiatek
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, the gunsight is definitely sitting too high, the lens was flush with the top of the panel lip.. I mean, I don't get it, it's not like there isn't enough reference material, come on fellas, we know you can do better than this ;-)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was 777 I'd probably look at doing some further refinements to the 190 cockpit before the official release.  The luftwhiners will drag them down into the mud for years otherwise and it will have an effect on the success of the product, out of all proportion to the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was 777 I'd probably look at doing some further refinements to the 190 cockpit before the official release.  The luftwhiners will drag them down into the mud for years otherwise and it will have an effect on the success of the product, out of all proportion to the problem.

 

Come on now, let's not start calling names. There are obviously some areas that need refinement, no need for yet another flame war. I think this is probably the reason why they were waiting to release the 190 in the first place, but I'm sure they'll address these issues adequately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this is why the 190 took so long to release. They probably debated what to do, as the the bar issue was going to rear it's head again. This time the bar really is below the cowling so removing it doesn't improve the view. Also as mentioned the revi is higher than it should be but now we can actually aim! The 190 in IL2 was a write off for me because of the bar, it really spoiled my enjoyment of an otherwise awesome plane because you couldn't lead the target properly. I learned to shoot blindly with it but it just wasn't as enjoyable so I rarely flew it. 

I hope people don't whinge too much, otherwise they'll lower the Revi and then we are screwed.

Anyway I'm happy with it now. Only problem I have is that my left toe brake still doesn't work on my CH pedals since 4 updates ago. This makes taxing the FW190 impossible. :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've enjoyed flying the FW190 for years...even the Forgotten Battles 1.0 stall machine I enjoyed flying. This sounds fantastic in comparison.... it'll take a bit to resist buying this at some point. *sigh*

 

And I see the bar discussion is alive and well :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for wrong Photoshop work.  :(

 

I made some changes to previous one.

 

What do you guys think?

 

8yYVqNi.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've actually more problems with the unreadable gauges (not just those lower ones, but also the RPM gauge for instance or the weapon status indicators) than with the look of the struts/bar.

 

The proportions just seem off somehow. Like the cockpit has been stretched lenght wise by atleast 200%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway I'm happy with it now. Only problem I have is that my left toe brake still doesn't work on my CH pedals since 4 updates ago. This makes taxing the FW190 impossible. :-(

 

 

Hmmm, interesting.  My left toe brake on my Saitek pedals doesn't work either.  Is this a known problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for wrong Photoshop work.  :(

 

I made some changes to previous one.

 

What do you guys think?

 

8yYVqNi.jpg

This looks actually exactly like the revi in Forgotten Battles. Same hight with part of the ligth circle obstructed by the bar.

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...