FuriousMeow Posted August 10, 2014 Posted August 10, 2014 I did a little tinkering, and I think this matches other air combat sims very closely in terms of the Fw-190 forward view. The lower panel seems to be set back about 3 inches behind the upper panel - I'm not sure on the real life measurements but that seems to be pretty extreme? Anyway, this is my default Fw-190 view and it is way better than the default or even the unzoomed default. The rear view has the headrest right there, but I have TiR so I can move my head around it.
IIN8II Posted August 10, 2014 Posted August 10, 2014 when I fly the 190 I also have my pilot sit way back in the cockpit, it really helps with the forward view.
LizLemon Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 Anyway, this is my default Fw-190 view and it is way better than the default or even the unzoomed default. The rear view has the headrest right there, but I have TiR so I can move my head around it. Fw-190_fwd_view.jpg Do you take this pilot view because of the bar and the compromised pilot view due to the lack of refraction modeing?
FuriousMeow Posted August 11, 2014 Author Posted August 11, 2014 No, absolutely not. No game models that refraction garbage only the 190 suffers from. 1
SeriousFox Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) As you can see many pictures uploaded on this forum, the lower instrument panel modeling is just wrong. There's no gap between upper panel and lower panel and that makes us hard to see instruments clearly. I also using TrackIR, but I hate to fly with that far back head position(which makes extremely hard to aim due to ridiculously huge aiming reticle) in normal head position, even if you had TIR it's extremely hard to see the lower instruments clearly unless your TIR sensitivity is very high or bend your neck like 90degrees left or right. Edited August 11, 2014 by SeriousFox 1
LizLemon Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 No, absolutely not. No game models that refraction garbage only the 190 suffers from. Yet those P-40 pictures you posted clearly show that "refraction garbage" going on. How can you argue against basic physics, ww2 era photographs and manufacturers blueprints. All of these things show the effect of refraction. Your arguments against refraction being present with the very thick and angled armor glass plate of the 190 are tantamount to denying that the earth is round. There is so much evidence against you, much of it very clear cut, yet you continue to engage in this war of denial. Why do you claim that the laws of physics, well established for hundreds of years, are somehow absent with the 190? What is your agenda? 3
SeriousFox Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 Yet those P-40 pictures you posted clearly show that "refraction garbage" going on. How can you argue against basic physics, ww2 era photographs and manufacturers blueprints. All of these things show the effect of refraction. Your arguments against refraction being present with the very thick and angled armor glass plate of the 190 are tantamount to denying that the earth is round. There is so much evidence against you, much of it very clear cut, yet you continue to engage in this war of denial. Why do you claim that the laws of physics, well established for hundreds of years, are somehow absent with the 190? What is your agenda? Hey, plz don't make this post locked.. and for FuriousMew, devs already admitted that they made compromises due to lack of forward visibility/refraction modeling.
FuriousMeow Posted August 11, 2014 Author Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) There is no refraction, there wasn't any in the P40 pictures and there isn't any with the 190. There are zero pictures showing the refraction, zero. ZERO. I even posted a picture from behind the 190 that was through the armored glass that "refracts" and the lower retention frame for the armored glass is clearly visible. "laws of physics" that only apply to the 190. Every other plane has thick armored glass but only the 190 experiences it. There isn't the "laws of physics" at play here, there's the laws of luftwhining. And, you think placing my view back does anything for "refraction"? I know you're a fool if you think that, because that does nothing for refraction, it simply allows better view of the lower panel and forward view that matches every other single air combat sim out there that also don't model "refraction" (for only the 190). Edited August 11, 2014 by FuriousMeow
Jaws2002 Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 No game models that refraction garbage only the 190 suffers from. 1
FuriousMeow Posted August 11, 2014 Author Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) Cool Jaws, that's not refraction. The entire view would be shifted down, its not. So you failed, the modeller simply thinned out the lower frame rather than having "refraction." Refraction has an effect on every single thing viewed through the glass not just the lower frame! And that's how I know none of you know what you are talking about. Edited August 11, 2014 by FuriousMeow
Jaws2002 Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) This thread is just a trolling trip. Needs to be locked and op needs a vacation.. ......so he can catch up with some old forgotten physics lessons. Edited August 11, 2014 by Jaws2002 3
SeriousFox Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 The reason why 190 has more refraction effect is because of steep angle of front glass. and yes, there is such thing 'refraction'
FuriousMeow Posted August 11, 2014 Author Posted August 11, 2014 Trolling? Okay, why are those clouds not shifting relative to the rest? Because there is no refraction. This isn't trolling, trolling is actually arguing for refraction since none of you know what it's impact is. Not just the lower part of the armored glass frame. The reason why 190 has more refraction effect is because of steep angle of front glass. and yes, there is such thing 'refraction' Yeah, you should use that emoticon on yourself. It won't impact just the frame, it will have an effect on everything - including clouds, ground, contacts, everything visible.
SeriousFox Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) Trolling? Okay, why are those clouds not shifting relative to the rest? Because there is no refraction. This isn't trolling, trolling is actually arguing for refraction since none of you know what it's impact is. Not just the lower part of the armored glass frame. Yeah, you should use that emoticon on yourself. It won't impact just the frame, it will have an effect on everything - including clouds, ground, contacts, everything visible. Of course it affects everything. but you can't see it unless the object is placed at the edge of panzer glass. Like the window frame and the nose. Edited August 11, 2014 by SeriousFox
LizLemon Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) There is no refraction, there wasn't any in the P40 pictures and there isn't any with the 190. There are zero pictures showing the refraction, zero. ZERO. I even posted a picture from behind the 190 that was through the armored glass that "refracts" and the lower retention frame for the armored glass is clearly visible. "laws of physics" that only apply to the 190. Every other plane has thick armored glass but only the 190 experiences it. There isn't the "laws of physics" at play here, there's the laws of luftwhining. And, you think placing my view back does anything for "refraction"? I know you're a fool if you think that, because that does nothing for refraction, it simply allows better view of the lower panel and forward view that matches every other single air combat sim out there that also don't model "refraction" (for only the 190). Take a look again at the P-40 pictures you posted. One side of the framing is clearly shorter then the other... and guess why - its refraction! There have been several cases where people explain to you that refraction is present in every ww2 fighter with a thick glass plate. This is even something P-47 pilots complained about! It effects every aircraft with a thick armor plate, but in the case of the 190 it is especially egregious due to the thickness of the glass, the angle of the glass, and the fact that the aircraft was designed with this refraction in mind (or maybe those fw blueprints are imaginary....) Here is a photo of an armor glass plate from the 109. Look at the steel frame holding those plate. Notice how they are distorted. Wonder what could cause that... couldn't be real world physics, right FuriousMeow? I guess refraction is an imaginary law of physics, even thought the math works out, right? Edited August 11, 2014 by LizLemon 2
LizLemon Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) Of course it affects everything. but you can't see it unless the object is placed at the edge of panzer glass. Like the window frame and the nose. The distance of the object matters. I can't find the thread that explains this right now since the forum search function is too limited. But the farther away an object is the less it will be "distorted", or dropped slightly lower in the case of the 190. The refraction issues P-47 pilots complained about was due to the fact that there was a glass windscreen and behind it you had a piece of armored glass at a different angle. Here is a pic of the 262 armor glass clearly displaying distortion. Or maybe I'm imagine the laws of physics..... Edited August 11, 2014 by LizLemon 2
Rama Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 Should any single thread about FW190 and/or refraction be a dispute? Locking.
Recommended Posts