Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BlackSix

Developer Diary, Part 73

Recommended Posts

I wish there was some sort of unfocusing of the distant landscape when the POV is looking toward the gauges. Not sure how the aiming would be handled though. There just doesn't seem to be any depth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC there was an experimental depth-of-field effect in Rise Of Flight somewhen.

Although it is a staple of modern real time rendering by now, the nature of flight sims with their relatively fixed foreground / background constellations doesn't lend itself to effect

( it is hard to "teach" a filter how to judge what the player is looking at exactly - a problem first person shooters can circumvent by teaching it to work with the relative distances of objects from the players perspective ).

That said the motion blur we have in this sim is implemented superbly and I'm certain the team could pull off something that works if they really tried.

Edited by Hunin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as do not want to get dragged into this, is this the sort of effect people are asking for?  Original on the left, thinner glass from the right.  :unsure:

 

1_zps64f83246.jpg

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say yes,thats the witchcraft needed to circumvent those pesky refraction tricks ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Check my spoiler :)

We have 6000 series cards and I believe we are dealing with the same problem.  Unlimited frame lock gives stutters no matter how high your card can push frames.  The only way I have found to stop them is set 60, 50, or 30 and never fall below that mark.  Give it a try and hope it helps you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as do not want to get dragged into this, is this the sort of effect people are asking for?  Original on the left, thinner glass from the right.  :unsure:

 

1_zps64f83246.jpg

Now THAT is getting somewhere - possibly even slightly more is needed, but your modified image matches reality MUCH more than the original.

 

Seriously, having spent the last ten years of my life staring through thick glass laminate, I ask you, doesn't the image on the left look like there is actually a thin walled glass box in the place of the windscreen, as opposed to a thick, solid chunk of glass, ie no refraction taking place? It just looks wrong based on gut feel alone, and of course once the physics are made clear it all becomes obvious.

 

This bar (and now the associated problem of the side bars) discussion raises it's head over and over again because it has never truly been laid to rest - of course it will happen again! It's got nothing to do with Luftwhining and everything to do with reality! And frankly I think we have the answer here, but whether it can be implemented....well, that isn't up to us. And as mentioned, the gunsight is mounted higher than reality to try to work around this, the same problem that showed in the original IL2 (thank you to the poster who made the screenshots that showed that)

 

Really, this answer is absolutely clear to me - it's really all down to what the devs do now IMHO. If a simple hardware based refraction modifier is available, use it. I can only imagine the heaps of praise to those who finally conquer the evil bar question! :biggrin: Eternal glory in the simming world!

 

So to sum up:

 

-We have the BOS 190 with an oddly raised sight height, 'the' bar, massively thick appearing sidebars, and a history of years of complaints about this issue from several previous sims. Comparisons of actual photo's vs the sim make the difference quite clear IMHO.

-We have the clear laws of physics around light refraction, and graphic pictures, including one of the actual 190 cockpit with sight line trace including refraction through the windscreen.

-These laws of physics make the reason behind the current and past problems completely clear. Again, looking at armoured vehicles, an M1A2 Abrams Tank Commander, when buttoned up (ie in the tank with the hatch closed) is well below the actual hatch vision block height, yet when he looks through the vision blocks around the hatch, to him it appears as if his eyeline is on the same level as the top of the turret, ie well above his actual sightline where his head is well below the turret deck height (seriously, google some images of an M1A2 TC hatch). Those vision blocks perfectly represent the principal of what happens here IMHO.

-Implementing some kind of refraction modifier would solve all these problems and avoid the current necessity of artificially raising the sight height. Whether this is possible is a seperate issue.

 

Can't we all just agree on this? The implementation is up to the devs. Even if they just say 'Yup, we see the issue, but we can't solve it realistically with the current engine/hardware' we'd be making progress. This probably affects other aircraft too, so it's not just a 190 thing, but this aircraft seems to have the killer combination of thick glass, highly angled windscreen, radial engine (ie crappy lower forward vision anyway), and low mounted sight which exacerbates the whole issue. Once your'e aware of this, it really makes flying the 190 a little more irritating than it should be, given that the front windscreen is going to be where you spend most of your time looking out!

 

I've never really complained about this in the past, merely accepted that it was wrong and moved on, but I think there is a real chance that at least the principal that is at work here can be recognised and accepted, even if a solution may not be forthcoming immediately. Anyway. I will now go and fly some more. ;)

Edited by ARM505
  • Upvote 3

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.

 

I'm no specialist in optics, but this sounds quite reasonable to me. In further consequence, please correct me, not only objects entering the field of view within the front armoured glass drop instantly, but also the bar does. So it does actually matter in this discussion.

 

HOWEVER:

 

I pretty much believe that the modelling of the cockpit is as accurate as it is possible and I will never dare to allege devs to make the cockpit frames intentionally larger. Actually, such thoughts are pretty sad and I fully understand if the dev team is disappointed and probably upset because of this discussions and comments of some users. Everyone should be agree, that effects like light refraction can not be modelled in such a game. You can render single images quite easy, but no 30 fps is possible. Hardeware at the current stage is just not capable of handling the workload.

So, if light reflection would really "positively" affect the "bar-problem", how would you realise a fix for it? Before creating "refraction adapted cockpit frames" of every single plane in this game, I definitely like to stick with the (original) blueprints of the planes, meaning the current situation.

 

Enjoy the Focke and live with it guys.

Edited by I/JG27_Zimmi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC there was an experimental depth-of-field effect in Rise Of Flight somewhen.

 

It was even present in BoS until the devs removed the graphics settings and dumbed it down to 4 preset levels IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have 6000 series cards and I believe we are dealing with the same problem.  Unlimited frame lock gives stutters no matter how high your card can push frames.  The only way I have found to stop them is set 60, 50, or 30 and never fall below that mark.  Give it a try and hope it helps you. 

 

Set it to 60 and it feels better, though not perfect. Might be some spikes where it comes down below 60, but I also cranked up from Balanced to Ultra in the same step. I always had it set zo Ultra prior to the stutterings' appearance and it ran smooth as silk. So it's still worse now.

But actually I'm just waiting for EDGE (the new graphics engine for DCS, ver. 2.0.0 which will be the next update) and nVidia releasing some GTX 8xx cards as I just don't want to buy a "not so new" GTX 7xx card that I could have bought 12-14 months ago for the same bucks or even less. And maybe EDGE will make me stay with AMD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, what's up with the gun triggers? :)

 

I don't know the source of this source :lol:

But it sounds reasonable: http://www.focke-wulf190.com/starrbewaffnung2.htm

 

 

Die 190 hatte zwei Feuerknöpfe, welche als Knopf A und B bezeichnet wurden.
Bis zur Einführung der Rüstsätze feuerte der Knopf A eingestellt vom Flugzeugführer wahlweise nur die beiden Rumpfwaffen, die Rumpfwaffen und die Flügelwurzelwaffen zusammen oder alle Starrwaffen zusammen ab. (die Änderung der Auswahl war jederzeit während des Fluges möglich) Der Knopf B diente nur zum auslösen der Abwurfwaffen. Nach Einführung der Rüstsätze feuerte man mit dem Knopf A nur noch wahlweise die Rumpfwaffen oder die Rumpfwaffen zusammen mit den Flügelwurzelwaffen ab, während der Knopf B nur die Flügelaußenwaffen oder die Abwurflasten auslöste.

 

= Until the introduction of /R variants (Rüstsätze, which started with the A-4 leading to F and G variants AFAIK) the Trigger A would fire ALL guns, but the guns to be fires could be selected by the pilot, either just MG17s, MG17s + inner MG151s or all, anytime while inflight. Button B is just for releasing ordnance. With introductin of the /Rs, button A just fired the cowling MGs or the cowling MGs plus the inner cannons, button B would trigger either the outer cannons or the ordnance.

 

And regarding the armored wind shield I suspect one little thing that may make the side bars look thicker than they really are besides missing light refraction.

Cross section of the armored wind shield in BoS:

                 outside
         _________________________
strut-> /  /   armored glass   \  \ <-strut
       /__/_____________________\__\
                  inside


What it might have been in the real thing (would be nice to get some proof):

                 outside
         _________________________
strut-> / |    armored glass    | \ <-strut
       /__|_____________________|__\
                  inside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now THAT is getting somewhere - possibly even slightly more is needed, but your modified image matches reality MUCH more than the original.

 

Seriously, having spent the last ten years of my life staring through thick glass laminate, I ask you, doesn't the image on the left look like there is actually a thin walled glass box in the place of the windscreen, as opposed to a thick, solid chunk of glass, ie no refraction taking place? It just looks wrong based on gut feel alone, and of course once the physics are made clear it all becomes obvious.

 

This bar (and now the associated problem of the side bars) discussion raises it's head over and over again because it has never truly been laid to rest - of course it will happen again! It's got nothing to do with Luftwhining and everything to do with reality! And frankly I think we have the answer here, but whether it can be implemented....well, that isn't up to us. And as mentioned, the gunsight is mounted higher than reality to try to work around this, the same problem that showed in the original IL2 (thank you to the poster who made the screenshots that showed that)

 

Really, this answer is absolutely clear to me - it's really all down to what the devs do now IMHO. If a simple hardware based refraction modifier is available, use it. I can only imagine the heaps of praise to those who finally conquer the evil bar question! :biggrin: Eternal glory in the simming world!

 

So to sum up:

 

-We have the BOS 190 with an oddly raised sight height, 'the' bar, massively thick appearing sidebars, and a history of years of complaints about this issue from several previous sims. Comparisons of actual photo's vs the sim make the difference quite clear IMHO.

-We have the clear laws of physics around light refraction, and graphic pictures, including one of the actual 190 cockpit with sight line trace including refraction through the windscreen.

-These laws of physics make the reason behind the current and past problems completely clear. Again, looking at armoured vehicles, an M1A2 Abrams Tank Commander, when buttoned up (ie in the tank with the hatch closed) is well below the actual hatch vision block height, yet when he looks through the vision blocks around the hatch, to him it appears as if his eyeline is on the same level as the top of the turret, ie well above his actual sightline where his head is well below the turret deck height (seriously, google some images of an M1A2 TC hatch). Those vision blocks perfectly represent the principal of what happens here IMHO.

-Implementing some kind of refraction modifier would solve all these problems and avoid the current necessity of artificially raising the sight height. Whether this is possible is a seperate issue.

 

Can't we all just agree on this? The implementation is up to the devs. Even if they just say 'Yup, we see the issue, but we can't solve it realistically with the current engine/hardware' we'd be making progress. This probably affects other aircraft too, so it's not just a 190 thing, but this aircraft seems to have the killer combination of thick glass, highly angled windscreen, radial engine (ie crappy lower forward vision anyway), and low mounted sight which exacerbates the whole issue. Once your'e aware of this, it really makes flying the 190 a little more irritating than it should be, given that the front windscreen is going to be where you spend most of your time looking out!

 

I've never really complained about this in the past, merely accepted that it was wrong and moved on, but I think there is a real chance that at least the principal that is at work here can be recognised and accepted, even if a solution may not be forthcoming immediately. Anyway. I will now go and fly some more. ;)

This! +1

 

I hope the devs look into this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The member that mentioned the different perspective due to human stereoscopic vision had a good point. That, and the fact that the pilot field of view is farther aft than it appears in reality probably lend to the annoying feeling of restrictive vision.

 

Some of the earlier Soviet jet fighters had thick armored center windscreens that affected the opacity. It was bad enough that pilots commonly used an offset during intercepts to visually pick up the target in the thinner quarter panels of their forward screens.

 

We're simply discussing the limitations of rendering a human 3D view onto a 2D screen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we get rid off the ply wood wings? It seems  that one shot is enough to break off the wing. I really hope the damage modelling gets more attention.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as do not want to get dragged into this, is this the sort of effect people are asking for?  Original on the left, thinner glass from the right.  :unsure:

 

1_zps64f83246.jpg

Yep, the right one looks more legit.

 

I've compared it to my refference pictures used in my WT thread and it certainly looks more accurate.

 

For those who start with "Luftwhiner" complains it's not my liking that "demands" this change, it's a matter of accurancy. Why should we struggle with issues real 190 pilots didn't had?

Even in reality 190s were famous for their bad visibility, reducing it artificially even further in a flight sim doesn't sound to be a fair deal to me.

Edited by [Jg26]5tuk4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My default screenshot.  Sorry, just don't see the issue.  I was never much of a 190 fan but this is a beautiful bird to fly.

 

14769919463_9da173b2c6_b.jpg

Edited by VR-Stick
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I postet them in another Thread, here are some pictures which show the real A-3 Cockpit.

Fw190A3_cockpit.jpg

 

fw190_a.jpg

 

Fw190RSL_zps7ec27af3.jpg

 

lmv.gif

And here some factory drawings:

0_d2902_cab92c8b_L.jpg

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least this time the revi has been adjusted so that the bar does not affect aim. The fact that many instruments are invisible is much more inconvenient. Btw. the picture posted by Feathered with the thinner frame looks much more close to reality. This would allow to lower the gun sight and therefore the head position. Maybe after such a modification it would be possible to see more instruments.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My default screenshot.  Sorry, just don't see the issue.  I was never much of a 190 fan but this is a beautiful bird to fly.

 

14769919463_9da173b2c6_b.jpg

That looks pretty awesome to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FW190 looks great but QMB I'm experiencing bugs.  Lockups and game stopped working occurs when flying the 190.  The graphics are gtx 470 nvidia - latest driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A large proportion of folks are having CTDs with the new update. Just sit tight, there will be a patch in due time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

 

Fw_190_Armoured_Plate_Restored.jpg

 

I think that there is a problem here that far out weighs the BAR issue is the fact that they have used blue nylock nuts here. I have not checked in-game yet but this is going to be a game breaker for me if they have. I want a refund and all the developers fired :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the CTD problem is related to the 190. I had multiple CTDs before and after I bought the 190. But only after the latest update.

 

In another thread, someone [can't remember who] mentioned it only happens when fighting multi-crew aircraft.

 

So I just tried again, this time against fighters, or single seat IL-2s. Not had any problems in many battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also got CTDs while just flying the Il-2 or Stuka...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All we need now is Stiglr

I don't know. Some of the arguments are pretty long now. I'm not as young as I was 10 years ago during his reign of terror.

Edited by Rjel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wings seem to come off the 190 very easily. From what I understand it had very strong wing construction. A few hits from anything and they come flying off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. Some of the arguments are pretty long now. I'm not as young as I was 10 years ago during his reign of terror.

LOL

I remember Stig.

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!

This,

 

Don't really care about the bar issue. It's stupid and is completely out of proportion to the sim in general.If I can see through the gun sight then I can hit my target.

 

The fix is pretty simple: Lower the pilot's point of view which fixes a number of issues, then, drop the sight down a notch so it is closer to level and add the crash pad back in so it is historically accurate.

 

I'd like the windscreen supports to be thinned a bit but I can live with them if the dev's don't think so or can't in a reasonable amount of time. The bar and refraction and the thickness of the glass are mere distractions for people to plant their flags on and rant. Knock it the eff off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm choosing to stay ignorant of the whole thing - if it needs work I'm confident it will receive it.

I'll be happy when I can get some time to boot the thing up and give it a spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What baffles me is that despite the overwhelming evidence of the current errors with the 3d model, there are still people who think their uneducated opinion or flame comment is somewhat worth something or is of any help.

 

I would warmly recommend that if you have nothing constructive to say on the matter, then you refrain from posting, because you'll just ignite a flame war which will end up with the topic being locked.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What baffles me is that despite the overwhelming evidence of the current errors with the 3d model, there are still people who think their uneducated opinion or flame comment is somewhat worth something or is of any help.

 

I would warmly recommend that if you have nothing constructive to say on the matter, then you refrain from posting, because you'll just ignite a flame war which will end up with the topic being locked, other than making you look utterly ignorant.

 

 

^ Exactly what he said.

 

 

You kn ow they always can correct stuff guys. When you attack them you sound like toddlers crying for a candy bar. It does not inspire them to work to make anything better or new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a 3D aircraft modeler, I can tell you that it's an evening's worth of work - maybe 2. 

Certainly I could fix it within a single work day, especially considering the low-res nature of these models.

It's no biggie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, some of you need to calm down. Everybody can have an opinion and is free to express it, if it doesnt offends or gets into personal attacks is all good. If you feel you are been offended or getting insulted or something similar do not post back, just Pm us or report the offender.

 

If someone disagree with you, well that happens, there is nothing to gain into trying to convice over and over the others into what you think is correct, but that just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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

 

Fw_190_Armoured_Plate_Restored.jpg

 

I think that there is a problem here that far out weighs the BAR issue is the fact that they have used blue nylock nuts here. I have not checked in-game yet but this is going to be a game breaker for me if they have. I want a refund and all the developers fired :rolleyes:

 

My main issue is not the blue nylon but the fact the torque wrench has not been modeled or any type of trailer produced about it with in-game footage. Can someone add some colored lines to help show the direction of the torque and the angle of the wrench?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh..and I was getting all bent out of shape because the quality of the welds doesn't match with the current 3D model.

The torque thing as well as the nylon lock nuts - well I'm going to PM the devs for a refund....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

I've seen one or two people report the issue and I raised it as a bug a few months ago. One guy re-installed his CH management software and got it working. I don't see how that would fix it as the OS recognises the axis, it's the game that doesn't. Out of desperation I tried it anyway but it didn't fix it. I wonder if I should re-install the game?

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...