Developer Diary, Part 74

[71st_AH_Hooves]

I think it looks great. It more accuratley simulates the thick glass effect. Agree that now the frame is thinner you can lower the Revi. And by lowering the viewpoint to look into the revi, you fix the lack of view to the lower dash. Win win.

 

This is a fantastic start and you guys really did a great job. This proves you were listening and i hope this kind of open mindness continues throughout future development. Cheers!

Edited August 1, 2014 by =SE=Hooves

[Rjel]

One thing I noticed today after the patch was the little imperfections in the glass I didn't notice last week. If they were there, they weren't nearly as subtle. I really thought I was seeing artifacting from my video card until I looked at the side of the canopy and it all was gone.  

[LuftManu]

Devs, you really listen to us, and tried to make it better,  it´s better, not perfect, but you did it, and in one week, for me, Hats off.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Manu_vc

[Pupo]

these might or might not be good images for discussion (they are terrible photos, that is guaranteed)

from a supposed D-9 cockpit at Deutsches Museum, Munich.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And this one is from the museum in berlin, with even worst quality, but a more panoramic view. Again, i think it is a D9 so not sure if it is a usefull photo or not.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2014 by E69_Pupo

[=38=Tatarenko]

Thank you for the nice update. I really like the Yak fuel tank gauges - nicely done! Now at last we don't need the HUD at all. I think you've removed it from expert mode?

[Streiff]

As far as i can tell the actual windscreen, the transparent part, is a few mm wider at the top than the old one, other than that they are pretty much identical. Left and right side windows gained a few mm when they narrowed the sidebars. And the Revi is in the exact same spot as before. The rest is using magical lines trying to show something that isn't there.

 

 

Thx for the effort in such a short time, honestly, but making it look differently doesn't mean something actually changed.

 

 

Sry for being a party pooper..

 

 

 

Edit: And the infamous lower bar is exactly the same size as before. Really, what is it about the bar that makes it a must have in the IL2 series??

Edited August 1, 2014 by Baron

[Bussard_x]

A comparison with the real one and the one from early access week #34. Front instrument panel seems too low.

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2014 by Benz

[Froddi_VR]

Thanks for the update! And the 111 looks great,cant wait to try it:)

[SeriousFox]

A comparison

 

 

 

Great comparison Benz.

 

I think lower bar should be thinner by raising the overall cockpit. It will also solve the lower instrument visibility issue.

[csThor]

I'm almost tempted by the He 111. Almost ... because I suck at flying anthing with more than one engine.

 

Just curious could you guys be persuaded to include air-droppable supply containers as loadout for the external racks on the He 111? Or how do you propose to simulate their role in supplying 6th Army?

[FuriousMeow]

Looks now stretched the Cockpit from the Fw 190 A-3. The Pilot should have very long arms to fly this plane.

 

And I see now how much Polygone the Cockpits have because the change that was made on the Fw 190 is only 0,002 megabytes, not really much work to do it correct

 

They didn't add more data to the cockpit, they just made slight changes to everything already present. That will never change the size of a data file appreciably.

 

Everything you post is just nonsense.

[JG4_Widukind]

The adjustable Stabilizers on the FW 190 don´t seem to work anymore!

[Trident_109]

The adjustable Stabilizers on the FW 190 don´t seem to work anymore!

I just flew about a bit and noticed the same thing. I even re-assigned the buttons, restarted the game and still no go. The controls window does recognize my confirmation of button assignment. The stabilizer just doesn't work now.

[303_Kwiatek]

The adjustable Stabilizers on the FW 190 don´t seem to work anymore!

 

For me dont work also.  109 is ok.

 

Also i wonder why Fw 190 is much more prone to spin now.  Before it was different and more accurate stall modeleing.  Another balancing -  better cocpit view = more spin?

[JG4_Sputnik]

Very good pics Puppo!

I hope itis just a matter of time untill the lower bar disappears and the lower part of the instrument panels are visible. There are so many pics floating around now, I cant see why the devs wouldn't change it.

 

I can't get it though why this "messy" cockpit even happened in the first place since they claim that they worked stricktly from blueprints. Either it's not possible to do it right (because the 2d/3d transformation from real data in a game), or the quality control just wasn't there.

 

If I wasn't founder I wouldn't pay 20 something bucks for that plane.

 

But other wise the devs did a really great and fast job and took our concerns seriously. I just hope this was only the beginning and the rest is to follow

Cheers

[sport02]

Great comparison Benz.

 

I think lower bar should be thinner by raising the overall cockpit. It will also solve the lower instrument visibility issue.

 it's not the same version ( see the central panel )

 

also on this plan , I ask me more questions than you about the visibility :

 

http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/Fw190RSL_zps7ec27af3.jpg

Edited August 1, 2014 by sport02

[JG4_Sputnik]

If you compare the lines, you can see that the pics are pretty even (see instrument for comparison)

Only the REVI and the bars don't match at all.

 

[CreepiJim]

From a design/ engineering perspective I think the 3D model is still off. I am not too familiar with fighter aircraft new or old, looking at pictures around the web from museums, the revi is always lower and only the glass plate above the instrument "hood".

 

The eyes were about the same height as the padded head protection, which would be enough reason to mount the Revi just above the hood. With refraction the bar to hold the armoured front window would not have been an issue.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

no

 

 

no , for me in the first screen  the pov is more realistic even if we see less things , if you d' ont like  it you can move it yourself .

It's the same POV, I'm just looking down in pic two. Pilot is back and lower so he's not crushed up against the padding. POV wasn't changed between the two photos. The pic on the left is over the dash, pic on right is looking at instruments.

Edited August 1, 2014 by A1FltTrn=HerrMurf

[LLv44_Mprhead]

What happened with 190 cockpit was a step to right direction IMO. I hope that it will get some more attention at some point, namely position of revi and pilot's head position (which should take care of that visibility issue of lower instrument panel.)

 

I think that He 111 might finally make me to learn how to fly two engined planes

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I think it looks great. It more accuratley simulates the thick glass effect. Agree that now the frame is thinner you can lower the Revi. And by lowering the viewpoint to look into the revi, you fix the lack of view to the lower dash. Win win.

 

This is a fantastic start and you guys really did a great job. This proves you were listening and i hope this kind of open mindness continues throughout future development. Cheers!

Absolutely!

[Eldur]

 

As you can see, the lower instrument panel is still too high and therefore not visible.

[Eldur]

I really appreciate that you did something about the frame thickness, but the two major problems remain: Revi too high = POV too high = bad instrument visibility

 

Nope... it's just because of the missing gap above the lower panel.

 

I cannot not get stabilizer to work on axis on the 190 after this patch.  Tried the 109 and it's fine, but the 190 will not accept axis movement anymore.  Worked before this patch and now it doesn't.  109 still works.    

 

How about trim buttons? At least that would be the correct solution.

[CreepiJim]

So it is not a historical correct (blueprinted) cockpit. That's probably why the revis seems too high, when the upper instrument panels are too low.

 

Edited August 1, 2014 by III./StG2_Blechbohrer

[Revvin]

It's taken the developers just a week to come up with a fair compromise and get it out to us to use and what thanks do they get? More whining and moaning! Are we going to see more threats to quit this week too? Just how much more time is going to be wasted with each weeks set of demands?

[Eldur]

By the way... please update the system requirements:

• GPU: 1024 Mb+, GeForce GTX 260+/Radeon HD5850+

Even a 2GB HD6950 is NOT able to run this decently anymore. Or finally address the stutter issues.

It's taken the developers just a week to come up with a fair compromise and get it out to us to use and what thanks do they get? More whining and moaning! Are we going to see more threats to quit this week too? Just how much more time is going to be wasted with each weeks set of demands?

 

 

Well, I hope this is not about the lower panel stuff. It's a true fact that it is wrong while the devs actually gave in to the bar/strut whiners instead of correcting things that are indeed wrong by the blueprints.

[Darek]

The adjustable Stabilizers works. You only need to set these options. Sorry for my bad language. I hope that helped.

 

[kendo]

For me dont work also.  109 is ok.

 

Also i wonder why Fw 190 is much more prone to spin now.  Before it was different and more accurate stall modeleing.  Another balancing -  better cocpit view = more spin?

 

In a week that has seen some idiotic and nonsensical comments this one really takes the prize.

 

You actually believe this...?

 

 

[VBF-12_Snake9]

The adjustable Stabilizers works. You only need to set these options. Sorry for my bad language. I hope that helped.

 

To hell with buttons, I want my axis back.  . . .  and I don't care about what is historically correct.  If I wanted to fly by a keyboard I wouldn't have 500 dollars of flight sim equipment sitting here. 

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

As you can see, the lower instrument panel is still too high and therefore not visible.

um that's cause you POV is off if you sit back in your seat you don't have the revi straight in your face.

[=AVG=Zombie]

Wow the 190 has caused quit the stir has'nt she.....   just want to thank the dev's for making such a beautiful target for my La5 and Yak, it is very rewarding to shoot down the most wanted and talked about aircraft in the game so far...  I dont think it would be any different with or with out bars imo....

[CreepiJim]

 

Looks like every Simulation forum has the same topic over and over again...measure the height of a pilot sitting in the cockpit and the discussion should be over. Note the refraction taken into account on the gun sight line.

 

[303_Kwiatek]

Wonder why they changed stall/spin characteristic of Fw 190 with new update? Definitly not approve these.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Kwiatek

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Im now convinced 1cgs could deliver real 190's to everyones doorstep and they would complain about having to pay for the gas to fly it. Ive about given up on the LW side of the community.

[Gambit21]

Like someone else eluded, I understand it, I can still see a problem, but I'm not going to give it energy in an online forum or anywhere else.

I'll be glad to see more changes, but it won't bother me much if I don't. Flying is more fun than typing, and I'll be flying the Yak anyway.

 

I'd rather be a voice reinforcing the positives, and there are many - MANY more of those than what few little issues we have.

It's a fantastic piece of work even in it's current unfinished state. I'm having fun!

[Requiem]

It's great to see some progress made on the Fw190 forward visibility as it is much better than last week. I think you guys really nailed the thinning of the side bars because now it doesn't look like there are iron girders there anymore!

 

I never played 1946 online, so I never really knew about the whole "bar" issue, but from photo comparisons and even the side-on profile drawing in a post above mine you can easily see that the revi and lower panel still need minor adjustments. People can certainly live with the cockpit as it is now and if they can't they are being a touch dramatic, but once the DCS Fw-190 is released in August you can almost guarantee there will be comparisons between the two pits from the community so the time to get it right is coming up very soon.

 

I'm guessing the revi didn't come down this week because you would then have to adjust the weaponry trajectory which would take extra time compared to just a 3D modeling change, but hopefully you guys can find the time to sort out bringing the revi down. The pilot head position and gunsights being too high is something I remember back in RoF, particularly with the N17 where it required your view to be as if you were sitting on two or three telephone books in relation to the 3D pilot. Please bear in mind that we should be able to place our default view in line with where the 3D pilot's eyes would be and still be able to use the gunsight.

 

On another note I love the He-111 external screens and am really looking forward to seeing what you guys do with its cockpit. It's looking very very good so far, the skin texture is excellent

[Eldur]

The devs did't change the ground handling at all... it's still extremely strange.

 

By the way I'd really like to have some higher upload limits here, it's virtually impossible to upload tracks for bug reporting because of their sheer size.

 

Also, there are some trains gone in the QMB, again.

 

And guess what, My BMW 801 suddenly blew at 1.0 ata after ~ half an hour of flight at 1.2-1.3ata (mostly the lesser), now that's an extremely hard engine limitation. I'm still anything else than fond of those engines just blowing up after X time.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Eldur

[CreepiJim]

Is this really considered whining if people make the developers aware of issues? I know the way of doing so varies, but this is to be expected in a forum. I would appreciate less denial (by devs and the community) if issues are brought up, which would reduce the amount of backlash by the "fans" of an aircraft. We see there is nothing written in stone at this stage, which is a good thing and the purpose of alpha versions.

 

Since we do not have a known bug list, which has been suggested several times already, there is no way of knowing what has been brought to the developers attention and what is still open and unassigned. To be honest, the development seems secretive and only if enough people complain a reaction is communicated. It would be way easiert to keep the discussion neutral, if the confirmation of issues is more...interactive.

[Jaws2002]

Im now convinced 1cgs could deliver real 190's to everyones doorstep and they would complain about having to pay for the gas to fly it. Ive about given up on the LW side of the community.

I think you are stretching it a bit. The changes are obviously a move in the right direction and welcomed. It's, obviously not that hard to get it right.

Gunsight and lower instrument panel are clearly too high.

Why is considered an insult to ask for something done right? This is not rocket science. The FW190 cockpit was done right before, by quite a few companies and for free by moders.

Look at Classic Hangar's Fw190s. Those were done right from the start, at higher quality and for a fraction of the price.

Why is it considered an insult to hope a premium priced aircraft be done right?

[JG4_Sputnik]

Is this really considered whining if people make the developers aware of issues? I know the way of doing so varies, but this is to be expected in a forum. I would appreciate less denial (by devs and the community) if issues are brought up, which would reduce the amount of backlash by the "fans" of an aircraft. We see there is nothing written in stone at this stage, which is a good thing and the purpose of alpha versions.

 

Since we do not have a known bug list, which has been suggested several times already, there is no way of knowing what has been brought to the developers attention and what is still open and unassigned. To be honest, the development seems secretive and only if enough people complain a reaction is communicated. It would be way easiert to keep the discussion neutral, if the confirmation of issues is more...interactive.

 

 

I think you are stretching it a bit. The changes are obviously a move in the right direction and welcomed. It's, obviously not that hard to get it right.

Gunsight and lower instrument panel are clearly too high.

Why is considered an insult to ask for something done right? This is not rocket science. The FW190 cockpit was done right before, by quite a few companies and for free by moders.

Look at Classic Hangar's Fw190s. Those were done right from the start, at higher quality and for a fraction of the price.

Why is it considered an insult to hope a premium priced aircraft be done right?

 

 

Bravo, well said. We are here in an Alpha, which means feedback and discussions are here to make things as good as possible. No need to call people "whiners" and such.