Developer Diary, Part 74

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Its not an insult to ask. Its an insult to completly ignore the work they are doing and continue to claim abject incompetence on the part of the dev team. They have their blue prints that they have modded due to the community outcry. But according to some here youd think the devs were purposely twisting the knife and laughing maniacally.

 

There is so much more to do in the sim before finished. Let them get to it and return to this later as they have shown they are open to inputs.

 

And as far as other teams making models. one they havent made them in this gfx engine. They are on a zero limits time frame and they are creating one airplane in a much higher time frame than what is alloted here.

 

Just relax. This isnt FW190 butcher bird. Its IL2 sturmovick. And they have a larger goal in mind.

Edited August 1, 2014 by =SE=Hooves

[=38=Tatarenko]

 

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.

 

You just ran out of fuel?

[Jaws2002]

They have their blue prints that they have modded due to the community outcry.

This:

 

should also be part of the documentation for anyone planing to make a quality FW190 cockpit.

[Livai]

Now I need to wait a next week until the MGFF/M for the Fw-190 A-3 get fixed! MGFF/M have a weight of 26.3kg but the game use a weight of 47kg. And that should be historic correct? Very funny

[WeaponMode=4]
WMname="fw190a3_MGFF_60"
WMgroup="1"
PlaneModArg=-1
TurretID=-1
TurretDefault=""
TurretMod=""

[Gun=4]
GunType = "LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Weapons/AC_GER_MGFF.txt"
MaxReservedMagazines = 0
AC = true
MG = false
AttachToPart = "WingL_Mid_0" // Ïóøêà óíàñëåäîâàíà îò âåðõíåãî êàïîòà
ProbabilityOfHit = 0.005
CarriagePosition = -0.139, -0.130, -2.633 // Ìàññà è ìîìåíò èíåðöèè ïóøêè ñ óñòàíîâêîé ïðîïèñàíû â ëàôåò -0.129, -0.126, -2.634 -áåç îáòåêàòåëÿ
CarriageYawPitchRoll = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
CarriageMass = 47.0 // Ìàññà ìîòîð-ïóøêè ñ óñòàíîâêîé íà äàííîì ñàìîëåòå
CarriageMassPosition_inCarriageAxis = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
CarriageMOI_inCarriageAxis = 0.068, 2.560, 2.567, 0.057, -0.020, -0.011
CarriageCxaS = 0.01 // Âíóòðåííÿÿ óñòàíîâêà
CarriageDragPosition = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 // Âíóòðåííÿÿ óñòàíîâêà
DefaultGunPosition = 0.545, -0.126, -2.634 // Ïî ñðåçó ñòâîëà
DefaultGunYawPitchRoll = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
DefaultGunCxaS = 0.0 // Âíóòðåííÿÿ óñòàíîâêà
DefaultGunDragPosition = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 // Âíóòðåííÿÿ óñòàíîâêà
BarrelTemperatureDecreaseCorrectionData = 1.0, 4.0, 300.0
BulletDispertionAngleCorrectionCoefficient = 12.5 //ðåôåðåíñ â âèäå ðóêîâîäàùåãî äîêóìåíòà ïî íàñòðîéêå ðàçáðîñà
AmmunitionAttachToPart = "WingL_Mid_0" // Íàèìåíîâàíèå CollisionBox òîé ÷àñòè ËÀ, ê êîòîðîé ïðèñîåäèíÿåòñÿ áîåêîìïëåêò ñòðåëêîâîãî îðóæèÿ
AmmunitionPosition = -0.254, -0.104, -2.776 // Êîîðäèíàòû ö.ì. áîåêîìïëåêòà ñòðåëêîâîãî îðóæèÿ â ÑÑÊ ËÀ, [ì]
CartridgeCasesEjection = false
AfterServiceOperationDelay = 0.3
FireButtonArgIdx = 9120
FlashAnimationArgIdx = 9033
FlashAnimationGroup = 1 //Light Arg 60230
GunSoundsIdx = 5
ShotSoundType = 1
[end]

[Gun=5]
GunType = "LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Weapons/AC_GER_MGFF.txt"
MaxReservedMagazines = 0
AC = true
MG = false
AttachToPart = "WingR_Mid_0" // Ïóøêà óíàñëåäîâàíà îò âåðõíåãî êàïîòà
ProbabilityOfHit = 0.005
CarriagePosition = -0.139, -0.130, 2.633 // Ìàññà è ìîìåíò èíåðöèè ïóøêè ñ óñòàíîâêîé ïðîïèñàíû â ëàôåò -0.129, -0.126, 2.634 -áåç îáòåêàòåëÿ
CarriageYawPitchRoll = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
CarriageMass = 47.0 // Ìàññà ìîòîð-ïóøêè ñ óñòàíîâêîé íà äàííîì ñàìîëåòå
CarriageMassPosition_inCarriageAxis = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
CarriageMOI_inCarriageAxis = 0.068, 2.560, 2.567, 0.057, 0.020, 0.011
CarriageCxaS = 0.01 // Âíóòðåííÿÿ óñòàíîâêà
CarriageDragPosition = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 // Âíóòðåííÿÿ óñòàíîâêà
DefaultGunPosition = 0.545, -0.126, 2.634 // Ïî ñðåçó ñòâîëà
DefaultGunYawPitchRoll = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
DefaultGunCxaS = 0.0 // Âíóòðåííÿÿ óñòàíîâêà
DefaultGunDragPosition = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 // Âíóòðåííÿÿ óñòàíîâêà
BarrelTemperatureDecreaseCorrectionData = 1.0, 4.0, 300.0
BulletDispertionAngleCorrectionCoefficient = 12.5 //ðåôåðåíñ â âèäå ðóêîâîäàùåãî äîêóìåíòà ïî íàñòðîéêå ðàçáðîñà
AmmunitionAttachToPart = "WingR_Mid_0" // Íàèìåíîâàíèå CollisionBox òîé ÷àñòè ËÀ, ê êîòîðîé ïðèñîåäèíÿåòñÿ áîåêîìïëåêò ñòðåëêîâîãî îðóæèÿ
AmmunitionPosition = -0.254, -0.104, 2.776 // Êîîðäèíàòû ö.ì. áîåêîìïëåêòà ñòðåëêîâîãî îðóæèÿ â ÑÑÊ ËÀ, [ì]
CartridgeCasesEjection = false
AfterServiceOperationDelay = 0.3
FireButtonArgIdx = 9120
FlashAnimationArgIdx = 9133
FlashAnimationGroup = 2 //Light Arg 60240
GunSoundsIdx = 6
ShotSoundType = 1
[end]
[end]

[WeaponMode=5]
WMname="fw190a3_MGFF_90"
WMgroup="1"
PlaneModArg=-1
TurretID=-1
TurretDefault=""
TurretMod=""

[Gun=4]
GunType = "LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Weapons/AC_GER_MGFF.txt"
MaxReservedMagazines = 0
AC = true
MG = false
AttachToPart = "WingL_Mid_0" // Ïóøêà óíàñëåäîâàíà îò âåðõíåãî êàïîòà
ProbabilityOfHit = 0.005
CarriagePosition = -0.139, -0.130, -2.633 // Ìàññà è ìîìåíò èíåðöèè ïóøêè ñ óñòàíîâêîé ïðîïèñàíû â ëàôåò
CarriageYawPitchRoll = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
CarriageMass = 47.0 // Ìàññà ìîòîð-ïóøêè ñ óñòàíîâêîé íà äàííîì ñàìîëåòå
CarriageMassPosition_inCarriageAxis = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
CarriageMOI_inCarriageAxis = 0.068, 2.560, 2.567, 0.057, -0.020, -0.011
CarriageCxaS = 0.01 // Âíóòðåííÿÿ óñòàíîâêà
CarriageDragPosition = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 // Âíóòðåííÿÿ óñòàíîâêà
DefaultGunPosition = 0.545, -0.126, -2.634 // Ïî ñðåçó ñòâîëà
DefaultGunYawPitchRoll = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
DefaultGunCxaS = 0.0 // Âíóòðåííÿÿ óñòàíîâêà
DefaultGunDragPosition = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 // Âíóòðåííÿÿ óñòàíîâêà
BarrelTemperatureDecreaseCorrectionData = 1.0, 4.0, 300.0
BulletDispertionAngleCorrectionCoefficient = 12.5 //ðåôåðåíñ â âèäå ðóêîâîäàùåãî äîêóìåíòà ïî íàñòðîéêå ðàçáðîñà
AmmunitionAttachToPart = "WingL_Mid_0" // Íàèìåíîâàíèå CollisionBox òîé ÷àñòè ËÀ, ê êîòîðîé ïðèñîåäèíÿåòñÿ áîåêîìïëåêò ñòðåëêîâîãî îðóæèÿ
AmmunitionPosition = -0.254, -0.104, -2.776 // Êîîðäèíàòû ö.ì. áîåêîìïëåêòà ñòðåëêîâîãî îðóæèÿ â ÑÑÊ ËÀ, [ì]
CartridgeCasesEjection = false
AfterServiceOperationDelay = 0.3
FireButtonArgIdx = 9120
FlashAnimationArgIdx = 9033
FlashAnimationGroup = 1 //Light Arg 60230
GunSoundsIdx = 5
ShotSoundType = 1
[end]

[Gun=5]
GunType = "LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Weapons/AC_GER_MGFF.txt"
MaxReservedMagazines = 0
AC = true
MG = false
AttachToPart = "WingR_Mid_0" // Ïóøêà óíàñëåäîâàíà îò âåðõíåãî êàïîòà
ProbabilityOfHit = 0.005
CarriagePosition = -0.139, -0.130, 2.633 // Ìàññà è ìîìåíò èíåðöèè ïóøêè ñ óñòàíîâêîé ïðîïèñàíû â ëàôåò
CarriageYawPitchRoll = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
CarriageMass = 47.0 // Ìàññà ìîòîð-ïóøêè ñ óñòàíîâêîé íà äàííîì ñàìîëåòå
CarriageMassPosition_inCarriageAxis = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
CarriageMOI_inCarriageAxis = 0.068, 2.560, 2.567, 0.057, 0.020, 0.011
CarriageCxaS = 0.01 // Âíóòðåííÿÿ óñòàíîâêà
CarriageDragPosition = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 // Âíóòðåííÿÿ óñòàíîâêà
DefaultGunPosition = 0.545, -0.126, 2.634 // Ïî ñðåçó ñòâîëà
DefaultGunYawPitchRoll = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
DefaultGunCxaS = 0.0 // Âíóòðåííÿÿ óñòàíîâêà
DefaultGunDragPosition = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 // Âíóòðåííÿÿ óñòàíîâêà
BarrelTemperatureDecreaseCorrectionData = 1.0, 4.0, 300.0
BulletDispertionAngleCorrectionCoefficient = 12.5 //ðåôåðåíñ â âèäå ðóêîâîäàùåãî äîêóìåíòà ïî íàñòðîéêå ðàçáðîñà
AmmunitionAttachToPart = "WingR_Mid_0" // Íàèìåíîâàíèå CollisionBox òîé ÷àñòè ËÀ, ê êîòîðîé ïðèñîåäèíÿåòñÿ áîåêîìïëåêò ñòðåëêîâîãî îðóæèÿ
AmmunitionPosition = -0.254, -0.104, 2.776 // Êîîðäèíàòû ö.ì. áîåêîìïëåêòà ñòðåëêîâîãî îðóæèÿ â ÑÑÊ ËÀ, [ì]
CartridgeCasesEjection = false
AfterServiceOperationDelay = 0.3
FireButtonArgIdx = 9120
FlashAnimationArgIdx = 9133
FlashAnimationGroup = 2 //Light Arg 60240
GunSoundsIdx = 6
ShotSoundType = 1
[end]
[end]

 

[widgeon]

 

 

Posted Today, 16:11   Left side after the new patch.

 

 

A few others have pointed this out, but it took me a while to see:

 

That the lower bar is no different than before. The position of the gunsight is no different.

 

The change is in the side framing, but the width is reduced on the outside, which only increases the size of the side window.

 

The armor glass frame looks different, but actually nothing has been changed with regards to the view thru the armor glass, the gunsight position, or the perspective of the pilot.  

 

Therefore, ALL of the view problems remain.

 

Don't want to be a winer, but it is what it is.....

[Leaf]

I'm tearing my hair out right now, god knows what it's like for the devs...
Just the brazen feeling of entitlement some folks here seem to have defies belief! For heaven's sake they've only got a few months left until release. 

I mean do you really have nothing better to do than to nit-pick, criticise and tear apart a game that's not even f***ing finished yet? One where the developers literally try to please you on a weekly basis?! You demand and clamour for new features every bloody week, expecting non stop communication and instant fixes? With the developers doing their utmost to respond to the constant criticism, you then reward them with more?! What right do you have to express "extreme disappointment"?!

The FW 190 cockpit is better now; and even if it wasn't, at least have the decency to realise that they've tried to fix the issue you complained about within one week. One week!

I'm all for constructive criticism, but to me the whole 190 cockpit thing has got insultingly out of hand (see Siggi & Co.'s comments).

Devs if you need a break, for heaven's sake take one. I certainly would.

 

 

Oh, and if you really are that desperate for a 190 cockpit fix, then maybe don't expect the He 111, Campaign and a complete FM overhaul by next week. You might be disappointed.

Edited August 1, 2014 by LeafyPredicament

[LuftManu]

I'm tearing my hair out right now, god knows what it's like for the devs...

Just the brazen feeling of entitlement some folks here seem to have defies belief! For heaven's sake they've only got a few months left until release. 

I mean do you really have nothing better to do than to nit-pick, criticise and tear apart a game that's not even f***ing finished yet? One where the developers literally try to please you on a weekly basis?! You demand and clamour for new features every bloody week, expecting non stop communication and instant fixes? With the developers doing their utmost to respond to the constant criticism, you then reward them with more?! What right do you have to express "extreme disappointment"?!

The FW 190 cockpit is better now; and even if it wasn't, at least have the decency to realise that they've tried to fix the issue you complained about within one week. One week!

I'm all for constructive criticism, but to me the whole 190 cockpit thing has got insultingly out of hand (see Siggi & Co.'s comments).

Devs if you need a break, for heaven's sake take one. I certainly would.

 

Ditto, if is not perfect, they tried to, and of course they will do it, but know, there are more importan things, you are know your own enemies, doing this, you are doing damage to the Dev team, I am not going to lose a great Il2 Title because of this, remember what happened with Clod about the "Grass is too green"?

 

And yes, I said the Revi was too high, okey, but it is only a revi, and we can live with it know, I want to say Thanks in public to the Dev team, for doing this effort out of his plans, and they are closer to get the whole community pleased with this machine. Guys, just wait, we are on a deadline, and those "Bad" devs you said, spent all the week for all of us to be pleased, we are a step closer now.

 

We just need to believe on the Devs, there has been bad times for Il2 since a few years, but know the situation can change, we need to help the devs,we need  try not to care until it is fixed, because in this market, the Devs and us  are responsible of the success of the title, so, my question is, Do you want to have the 100% perfect Cockpit Right know, (In an Alpha state of the Game) or try to not Spam the Devs and have the Cockpit , and a lot of more content in some time?

Edited August 1, 2014 by Manu_vc

[Leaf]

 you are know your own enemies, doing this, you are doing damage to the Dev team, I am not going to lose a great Il2 Title because of this, remember what happened with Clod about the "Grass is too green"?

 

I don't understand.  :/

[LuftManu]

I was trying to tell that we are our worst enemies sometimes, we need to be confident with the team, and try to not give much importance to the cockpit, till the game is finished, doing this, we are just "destroying" the title from inside

[71st_AH_Hooves]

My 190 has no gas in it. And the home owners association is getting on me about the airplane parked in my drive way. Death to who is responsible!

[Leaf]

I was trying to tell that we are our worst enemies sometimes, we need to be confident with the team, and try to not give much importance to the cockpit, till the game is finished, doing this, we are just "destroying" the title from inside

 

Spot on!

[JG4_Sputnik]

Now I need to wait a next week until the MGFF/M for the Fw-190 A-3 get fixed! MGFF/M have a weight of 26.3kg but the game use a weight of 47kg. And that should be historic correct? Very funny

Maybe thats the weight of two mg instead of one?

[Panzerlang]

There's quite the hysteria from some quarters here, where the cries of dissatisfaction from others over the bent Fw190 cockpit are perceived as being significantly detrimental to the well-being of the devs and the game itself.

 

They got it badly wrong, and to a degree that leaves any normal and rational person bemused. Then they 'fixed' it and got that wrong too. Are we really supposed to just shrug our shoulders, say "oh well" and accept it as it is? And then pat them on the back too?! It's bent! Badly bent! The view is fubar, the lower instrument panel can't be correctly seen even when the pilot's eye-line is at the correct level and the Revi sits too high.

 

If we don't hold them to a reasonable standard what's the point of expecting anything else to be accurate? Yes, FMs are a can of worms and there's room for latitude there. But the basic view from a cockpit? Really? Really?!

 

Some of you need to put away the self-righteous indignation and respect those who want a basically sound level of accuracy for their money. And with the 190 they've yet to get it.

[Leaf]

There's quite the hysteria from some quarters here, where the cries of dissatisfaction from others over the bent Fw190 cockpit are perceived as being significantly detrimental to the well-being of the devs and the game itself.

 

They got it badly wrong, and to a degree that leaves any normal and rational person bemused. Then they 'fixed' it and got that wrong too. Are we really supposed to just shrug our shoulders, say "oh well" and accept it as it is? And then pat them on the back too?! It's bent! Badly bent! The view is fubar, the lower instrument panel can't be correctly seen even when the pilot's eye-line is at the correct level and the Revi sits too high.

 

If we don't hold them to a reasonable standard what's the point of expecting anything else to be accurate? Yes, FMs are a can of worms and there's room for latitude there. But the basic view from a cockpit? Really? Really?!

 

Some of you need to put away the self-righteous indignation and respect those who want a basically sound level of accuracy for their money. And with the 190 they've yet to get it.

 

 

Just ask for a damn refund man...

 

There's a difference between asking for accuracy and demanding it. Of course, no-one's stop you from the latter (though arguably they should), but it's just a matter of courtesy. That's all. 

[Rama]

Everybody should calm down, stop hysteria and insulting each other.

If you have some facts to give, give them. But emphasis, use of drama don't help, it just turn this discussion into a useless mess.

 

From now on, every post with personnal arguments and/or drama will be removed.

[Livai]

Maybe thats the weight of two mg instead of one?

 

No, left wing 47.0kg and right wing 47.0kg. And that not correct. Each wing have seperate CarriageMass. I reported it but they never read it since 26 July 2014 - 16:44. No answer no fix, disappointed

 

"WingR_Mid_0"  // CarriageMass = 47.0

"WingL_Mid_0" // CarriageMass = 47.0

[widgeon]

 

 

Seriously, if so please explain what is better.   The bars aren't as thick. Good enough for me

 

Ok, fair enough.

 

The view through the side window(s) is improved.  

[Bassly]

Would it be ok to cry that FWs pedals are too far away from each other or is it too much for one week?

 

Thanks for the update on the side note.

[Zak]

I also congratulate you gents with a new week of eloquent disappointment posts that have already started to be smth usual in the FW 190 discussion threads.

Look, I'm the guy who's tossing the feedback straight to the right ppl in development. And if you've got extremely unpleasant feelings about Focke-Wulf (again) then just, please, tell me about it and keep the forum a bit cleaner. Sometimes it's better than getting yourselves banned for angry rants vs those who evaluates the current modeling more positevely than you. Take it easy, and wait for the final release.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

The best is coming 

[=38=Tatarenko]

The best is coming 

Yes. We are at 63%. Plenty to come yet!

[Eldur]

Take it easy, and wait for the final release.

 

I sincerely hope the final release will again support my hardware. For ~2 months it doesn't. How to take this easy? Any program shows 60fps, 70fps, 80fps while it's actually maybe 5fps, 6fps or 7fps, reported thousands of times, nothing happened. How shall we keep calm with that?

 

Even Ilya Muromets doesn't have these issues... runs perfectly, just like RoF and BoS until performance went somewhere where it can't be found anymore. Heck even that totally underwhelming TFCSE of DCS runs smoother on ATis at the moment, and that's a thing to beat.

 

Sorry, but I hope for improvements every friday... but I begin to lose this hope.

[Bussard_x]

I also congratulate you gents with a new week of eloquent disappointment posts that have already started to be smth usual in the FW 190 discussion threads.

Look, I'm the guy who's tossing the feedback straight to the right ppl in development. And if you've got extremely unpleasant feelings about Focke-Wulf (again) then just, please, tell me about it and keep the forum a bit cleaner. Sometimes it's better than getting yourselves banned for angry rants vs those who evaluates the current modeling more positevely than you. Take it easy, and wait for the final release.

 

Thanks Zak, it seems that the Fw 190 causes traditionally a lot of debate. Same was the case back in 2001 when the initial IL-2 was released. The Fw 190 was turned inside out, and it seemed that every detail was looked at. Developers, whiners and historic details freaks were involved in daily forum debates. I gues the 190 is important for a lot of people. I personally do not look at every detail but would appreciate it when developers took another look at the cockpit of the Fw 190.    

[Urra]

Can't wait to get yelled at for posting a positive post, but they're all very visually stunning models from a comparison to other games out there.(this is my main point). As games go there are certain compromises that must be made since you are still looking at a flat screen. One example is the possibility that for everything to show up on a regular monitor correctly, the cockpits actually may look a little oversize in other technologies such as VR goggles(as others have been reporting). This tech may bring challenges all its own in the future.

[VBF-12_Snake9]

I sincerely hope the final release will again support my hardware. For ~2 months it doesn't. How to take this easy? Any program shows 60fps, 70fps, 80fps while it's actually maybe 5fps, 6fps or 7fps, reported thousands of times, nothing happened. How shall we keep calm with that?

 

Even Ilya Muromets doesn't have these issues... runs perfectly, just like RoF and BoS until performance went somewhere where it can't be found anymore. Heck even that totally underwhelming TFCSE of DCS runs smoother on ATis at the moment, and that's a thing to beat.

 

Sorry, but I hope for improvements every friday... but I begin to lose this hope.

Yes, one begins to lose hope that it will be solved.  Not one word has been said about the problem.  Not even "we will look into that when we can."  I don't think they know what screwed up the ati cards.  Mean while I play with 30 frame lock.  The only game I have to do that with. 

[TX-Gunslinger]

 

 

 

 

 

My opinion on current FW 190 cockpit. 

 

Concur 100%.  Read through the entire thread - this post puts it all together very well for me.  Spent 1/2 hour with this version simply climbing, diving, recovering.

 

Thankful that effort was devoted to the windscreen and some sensitivity to the issue displayed by the developers.  It's a step in the right direction - there is still a good way to go.   The inability to observe the lower panel is a big deal.   The temperature and fuel gauges are down there.   In the current 3-D cockpit and pilot position, you must actually droop down to see it, similar to monitoring radiator lever in a Spad.   

 

When it's all right, good view forward and ability to scan all instruments at a glance.  Pilots head does not have to bend down to see critical gauges.

 

Instrument rendering is very important.  Instruments in these aircraft should be readable at a glance from normal (not wide view or zoomed in) fov.  

 

Elevators are still too stiff at 500 km/h plus.

 

New issue (at least for me) Contrail inception is 4500 meters now.  Should be 6800 - 7000 meters.

Edited August 1, 2014 by TX-Gunslinger

[LastRightsXIII]

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

 

 

 

That's because it is

[VR-DriftaholiC]

 

 

This blueprint shows the top of the dash and the cowling on the outside to be at the same level. If this was the case on the BOS version of the plane the bar would be nearly invisible on the bottom and the dash would be high enough now to obstruct the lower gauges. I think this blueprint needs to be referenced in the 3D model in game. While im nitpicking does anyone think the arch over the windscreen is a bit thick as well? I mean look how thin it is in this image:

 

Edited August 1, 2014 by driftaholic

[Felix58]

I'm sure the team is well aware of the issues re the 190 cockpit.  After all, they are as passionate about WW2 aviation as the rest of us I'm sure.  It is less than satisfactory at present.  Especially if DCS get their 190 cockpit more "right".  I sincerely hope the devs can get a workable solution to the issues presented.  Let's face it, cockpits are important.  It is what the player see's every time they play the game and one of the key factors that players consider when rating a game when talking to their mates.  It is an "elephant in the room" issue, infantry, as nice as they are, are "ants" as far as flight sim rating goes.   Dedicate resources to "elephants" not "ants"!

[BMW801]

To me, this is by far my favorite simulator. I think the entire project is coming along beautifully.

I spend most of my time in LW aircraft and the 190 looks beautiful and I realize it and a lot of other details are not finished.

 

I will buy everything that is put out by these developers. I just want the developers to keep up the good work and not get discouraged, because I want this to be the first in a long series of new sims eventually spanning the entire war in multiple theaters.

 

I have already gotten my money's worth from this sim in the multiple hours of enjoyment I have spent with it.

 

Keep cranking out the good work and I will keep throwing money your way to buy everything you put out.  I bought everything, including all of the aircraft, in RoF, even ones I never fly, to support the sim and your company so you will keep making more sims.

 

I am sure there are a lot of older professional people like me who don't say much, but buy everything to keep the sims coming. Your work is greatly appreciated

Edited August 2, 2014 by BMW801

[Matze81]

The current cockpit is a step in the right direction and it shows that, thankfully, the developers are open to suggestions and want to deliver the best possible product.

 

 

It seems that the apparent thickness of the armoured windscreen has been reduced, but unfortunately they reduced it from the wrong direction, by simply pushing the inside surface further forwards. While this improves the view through the small triangular windows next to the windscreen, it actually does nothing to the actual issue: The forward view through the windscreen is just as constrained as it used to be.

 

This means the Revi gunsight is forced to remain at its very high position, and that dictates the pilot viewpoint - which is similarly very high. Ideally, the height of the gunsight should be a control adjustable by pilots, and I'm fine with being able to put it that high. The problem is, lowering it to the more common position would block it because the optics of the windscreen are not emulated.

 

 

Instead of pushing the inner surface of the wind screen forwards, I would propose the following fix which would actually somewhat emulate what refraction does in the windscreen:

 

Here is a picture of the original, geometrically correct first release cockpit.

 

 

The obvious problem is that if you put the gunsight to its low, reference position, you can't see through it properly - so it is moved to quite a high position.

 

Let's remove the Revi gunsight to get a better view of what's going on here.

 

 

In addition to the struts of the windscreen being visible, there is apparently some sort of flat frame outside the windscreen, but the geometry is sort of difficult to see and it creates an illusion of the frames being even thicker than they are. I'm not completely sure if I'm seeing the shape correctly, but this is what I see:

 

 

I don't know if that outer "flange" or frame is actually there on the historical model, but it should be noted that removing it would probably make the view through the windscreen a bit wider...

 

Now, let's see what happens if we approximate what the refraction would do to the cockpit. Note that this is a completely unscientific approach and ideally, you should either calculate the effects of refraction by simulating its effect on the view, or go and take reference pictures from inside a Fw 190 cockpit, from the point of view you intend to use. But, this should give an idea of what I think the ideal compromise would be, if it's impossible to simulate the refraction in-game.

 

 

And now it's starting to seem more familiar, yes? Note that the [inner surface] of the armoured glass and its frame doesn't move outwards - the refraction of course doesn't affect it at all. You have a clear line of sight to these parts, and they should stay on their historically correct positions! It's the view through the windscreen that most of us are criticizing, and that solution doesn't actually improve that part of the model at all.

 

Let's add the Revi back in, this time in a lower position:

 

 

 

Now you can actually look through the gunsight even when it's in its lowest position, and if you lower your head towards the gunsight the view will be quite good I think.

 

If the devs want, they could make it adjustable, too! This would offer the optimal flexibility for pilots who prefer a low view point and pilots who prefer a high view point.

 

 

 

 

I should point out that I have the highest appreciation towards the developers, and for the most part the Fw 190 cockpit seems beautiful and intricately modeled. But, the optical qualities of the windscreen should definitely be considered with great care, as it was definitely a design feature of the Focke-Wulf 190 - and to lesser extent in other planes with flat windscreen.

 

I hope we can find a compromise that appeals to everyone, from the artists crafting the model, to the players flying it.

 

~S~

I believe this would have made most critics happy.

 

I thank the Devs for making a very quick change within only one week, but after all the threads, posts and pictures about how refraction works and how it affects the Fw-190 cockpit visibility in particular, I really cannot understand the way the Devs went about that change. Personally, I find it quite a bit frustrating.

 

The quoted post by FS-HerraTohtori (from another thread) sums it up perfectly. Thanks for that one mate!

[FuriousMeow]

I sincerely hope the final release will again support my hardware. For ~2 months it doesn't. How to take this easy? Any program shows 60fps, 70fps, 80fps while it's actually maybe 5fps, 6fps or 7fps, reported thousands of times, nothing happened. How shall we keep calm with that?

 

Even Ilya Muromets doesn't have these issues... runs perfectly, just like RoF and BoS until performance went somewhere where it can't be found anymore. Heck even that totally underwhelming TFCSE of DCS runs smoother on ATis at the moment, and that's a thing to beat.

 

Sorry, but I hope for improvements every friday... but I begin to lose this hope.

 

Well, you know - it might be a problem on your end. Maybe, just maybe, since it is so few with these performance issues it is a select small community that would mean it isn't the game but instead the end user's equipment.

 

Looking at your hardware in your sig, you are using two separate sound systems. X-Fi and VIA HD Onboard audio - why? You only need one audio device. You should disable onboard or remove the X-Fi, there is no reason to run both.

 

And as far as the 190, just delete the damn thing. I love it, but so many can't be bothered because of "refraction" that for some reason only has an impact on the 190. That obviously is ridiculous since all planes with thick armored glass will have refraction, and again - it won't have an impact on just the lower frame that retains the glass - but on all visible objects. That means planes will be dropping a quarter inch when passing through the quarter panel panes to the front armored glass. No one cares to think about that, or that every other plane with thick armored glass would have refraction if the 190 had it so bad. Just get rid of the 190, and replace it with the Macchi 202 or IAR 80 - at least those planes were actually over Stalingrad.

Edited August 2, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Voidhunger]

I sincerely hope the final release will again support my hardware. For ~2 months it doesn't. How to take this easy? Any program shows 60fps, 70fps, 80fps while it's actually maybe 5fps, 6fps or 7fps, reported thousands of times, nothing happened. How shall we keep calm with that?

 

Even Ilya Muromets doesn't have these issues... runs perfectly, just like RoF and BoS until performance went somewhere where it can't be found anymore. Heck even that totally underwhelming TFCSE of DCS runs smoother on ATis at the moment, and that's a thing to beat.

 

Sorry, but I hope for improvements every friday... but I begin to lose this hope.

Yes, one begins to lose hope that it will be solved. Not one word has been said about the problem. Not even "we will look into that when we can." I don't think they know what screwed up the ati cards. Mean while I play with 30 frame lock. The only game I have to do that with.

Yes, one begins to lose hope that it will be solved. Not one word has been said about the problem. Not even "we will look into that when we can." I don't think they know what screwed up the ati cards. Mean while I play with 30 frame lock. The only game I have to do that with.

[Voidhunger]

Yes, one begins to lose hope that it will be solved. Not one word has been said about the problem. Not even "we will look into that when we can." I don't think they know what screwed up the ati cards. Mean while I play with 30 frame lock. The only game I have to do that with.

I think we have bad luck , since majority of people have no problem. And if I remeber corectly, Zak said there were no major changes in the game which would worsened performance. so i have started to save money for the new gpu. I hope that the new AMD gpu perform better. I don't want underperforming and overpriced nvidia gpu.

[LizLemon]

And as far as the 190, just delete the damn thing. I love it, but so many can't be bothered because of "refraction" that for some reason only has an impact on the 190. That obviously is ridiculous since all planes with thick armored glass will have refraction, and again - it won't have an impact on just the lower frame that retains the glass - but on all visible objects. That means planes will be dropping a quarter inch when passing through the quarter panel panes to the front armored glass. No one cares to think about that, or that every other plane with thick armored glass would have refraction if the 190 had it so bad. Just get rid of the 190, and replace it with the Macchi 202 or IAR 80 - at least those planes were actually over Stalingrad.

 

Actually the refraction issue was brought up with regards to the 109s armor plate ages ago. And has already been pointed out; refraction affects any piece of glass, and the thicker it is and the greater the angle then the more noticeable the effect. You even posted several pics that demonstrates refraction quite well just a few days ago. The reason the 190 is a big issue is its a very thick piece of glass, at a very extreme angle, with a lower bit of framing that was intended to be hidden from the pilots view by way of refraction. It most certainly affects other planes as well but the 190 is probably the most extreme case.

[hiro]

I like the arguments where it shows a pic, and an example of how the revi and frame fit. Done. That gets the job bf-110%  of the time, all the time.

 

fixed it:

 

And as far as the Pacific theater, the aircraft carriers, just delete the damn thing. I love it, but so many can't be bothered because there are Japanese or American only had an impact on the war. That is obviously ridiculous since the British had aircraft carriers and the Germans had built one, and again, aircraft carriers won't have an impact on flying or on this flight sim in general. Dreadnaughts and battleships have planes, and submarine carriers is too much, but on all waters there are sea planes. That means modeling planes dropping a quarter deck when passing through the elevator shafts, and armored decks. No one cares to think about that, or that every other plane that lands on water or ships. Just get rid of the aircraft carriers and replace them with destroyers and battleships, at least those types were actually in the Pacific. 

 

J/K 

 

On a serious note, I am surprised. First time in a sim someone wanted to lose a plane, I know, for two others that may not be argued about as much as the bar but then what if the FM was over modeled? Or some reason those planes just did too well. Or were like p-47 tough . . .

 

I get you want the Italian jobs, and stop people from arguing, but in ww2 flight sims, the FW 190 and dive bar, tigers n 50 cals, are like politics and religion posts of other forums. . .  passions get the better sometimes . . . just ask any veteran detective, crime of passion is pretty crazy. its a part of sim life, like war is an unfortunate facet of human civilization. These arguments will be here, if not in the 190 bar form, then in some stat or chart, or something like ammo or riveting.

 

Just ask for the Italian planes as the dev's will probably do them, than to trade out for one. Especially one that was promised from almost the beginning

[sport02]

Matze8 ,

 

it's appears you modified the screen , but it seems you forget that for the bottom bar you can' t reduce it because of the engine Hood at the ouitside of the cockpit .

easy to modify a screen but different for all 3d cockpit which have to be modify for me .

[LizLemon]

Real pieces of cockpit armor from aircraft in a museum. In this case the 109. 

[Ballermann]

Good update now the FW 190 is realistic!(Power)
Thank you for the good work.

Greeting Ballermann!

Edited August 2, 2014 by Ballermann

[sport02]

in all these problem we don't forget that when we open the canopy and put the head at the outside , the tickness must equal with external view .

Edited August 2, 2014 by sport02