StG2_Manfred Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 "Maybe because..." "...more probable case..." "conclusion...must have..." Sorry, but that's way too shaky of a conclusion to make. Museum restorations are great, no doubt, but one has to take great caution with these sorts of planes, as museums don't always get things right. After all, in one such case, the NASM's D-9 had the wrong set of wings fitted for who knows how many years, until the problem was finally noticed and corrected. I didn't make a conclusion, I answered this to the question "What let us assume, this is right what we see...". Well, this is the same, isn't it. I could also have answered, what let us assume it is wrong what we see. At least without further knowledge the chance is fifty fifty, that was my point. Also, if we discuss about light refraction and someone shows me a pic where I can see the refraction, so why should I think, it is wrong what I see? We know that this effect existed, and now I can see it on that pics, so this let me say "the more probable case..."
1CGS LukeFF Posted August 14, 2014 1CGS Posted August 14, 2014 But definitely the refraction is there. And it has been proven times and times again over the years, but NOT A SINGLE DEV has done it right from the start, every time has been modded or similar. How hard can it be? If it was so easy as you claim it is, it would have been done so long ago.
Jaws2002 Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 Our virtual squadron (TX) is blessed with 4 real world pilots and an aeronautics engineer. One of our pilots works regularly at the Flying Heritage Museum. Apparently, it's been noticed that lately there's an uptick of folks who are requesting cockpit shots and detailed information concerning two aircraft, both Focke Wulf's. 190 D13 (Dortmann's - no cowl bumps - no MG 131- 3 X MG 151), and 190 A5. There's an email to curators concerning forward cockpit glass construction, although I really don't think this is an issue, due to the retention of original (thick) glass mounting and the fact that these two are flyable/have been flown in their current configuration. There is no intention of actually flying the D13, due to it's rarity, but the A5 routinely flies. What does flyable condition have to do with anything? If you went to the trouble to restore a 190, bolt by bolt, panel by panel etc... - why on earth would you install glass in the original mounts, so that when it was flown you had cockpit bar obstructions? You would take a priceless aircraft that had millions of dollars invested and obstruct the view? With that said, I believe the best practice would be to cover all claims and concerns. I'll post the glass information when we get it. This is a very interesting time, not only due to the promise of exciting new simulations - but the fact that there are two high resolution FW 190 cockpits that have been released within approximately 1 month of each other. Both have pilot head position and bar issues, one much more tolerable than the other. Here's the latest pics from the museum, from both aircraft. It seems to me that they speak for themselves. You be the judge. Thanks Thrud! Thank you very much Gunny! Those images are awesome! Honestly, this images are perfect to show how much the view drops through the glass. Just look how much the machinegun bumps drop, when view through the windscreen. How can anyone still argue this? Wasn't this part of basic physics back in school? 1
FuriousMeow Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 (edited) Then there is this. Of course it has been said that it is 30mm rather than 50mm (again, said - I have seen zero evidence it isn't 50mm glass), but refraction would still be present. Thank you very much Gunny!Those images are awesome!Honestly, this images are perfect to show how much the view drops through the glass. Just look how much the machinegun bumps drop, when view through the windscreen.How can anyone still argue this? Wasn't this part of basic physics back in school? That actually looks like the best example of refraction. You will also take note, the numbers on the yellow surface - they drop as well. Refraction has an impact on everything viewed through it - not just the lower frame, therefore aircraft are going to drop several inches when transitioning from the side panels to in front of the armored glass. Edited August 14, 2014 by FuriousMeow 1
LLv34_Flanker Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 (edited) S! MM: Look above at Zimmi's post. Curator of Flying Heritage Collection confirmed it, the Fw190's have the 50mm armor glass in place LukeFF: They could start building their model FROM THE START to have the correct view and not do these hack'n'slash "fixes" or have the community mod them They can not say that there is lack of pics, evidence and whatnot or there hasn't been any discussions It is all about realism vs. playability. In games realism does not need to be harder than RL :D Edited August 14, 2014 by LLv34_Flanker 2
FuriousMeow Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 S! Look above. Curator of Flying Heritage Collection confirmed it, the Fw190's have the 50mm armor glass in place If that is the case, then the screenshot I have that has 50mm armor glass in place means that frame is about 6 inches thick.
Jaws2002 Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 S! .... And it has been proven times and times again over the years, but NOT A SINGLE DEV has done it right from the start, every time has been modded or similar. How hard can it be? Actually Classic Hangar got it pretty close in their FSX FW 190s. I remember Mathias answering some questions about it on a forum, before his first model was released. I don't remember what forum it was posted on, maybe simhq, but it was long before his first plane was ready for release. His FW190s are still the best in this respect.
Dakpilot Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 (edited) As for the P40 shot, oddly enough if you have one object closer to you than the other - the object further away will become smaller relative to the object closer to you. Look at the bottom frame on the right with the red line there is no " further away will become smaller relative to the object closer to you." issue here. It is the same apparent width as the left frame, much thinner than the right. Click the picture to enlarge it and actually look at it with an open mind Furious Meow ="Refraction has an impact on everything viewed through it - not just the lower frame, therefore aircraft are going to drop several inches when transitioning from the side panels to in front of the armored glass." I don't think anyone has ever implied that it would not Cheers Dakpilot Edited August 14, 2014 by Dakpilot
FuriousMeow Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 P40.jpg Look at the bottom frame on the right with the red line there is no " further away will become smaller relative to the object closer to you." issue here. It is the same apparent width as the left frame, much thinner than the right. Click the picture to enlarge it and actually look at it with an open mind Cheers Dakpilot I have looked at it. The P40's armored glass is also angled, and not at the steep level that only the 190's armored glass would experience it. As I've said before, it either has an effect on everything with armored glass and it will have an impact on everything when viewed through that armored glass or it has no effect at all. You can't just have the 190's lower bar refracted away while ignoring the effect refraction has on literally everything.
FuriousMeow Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 Also, this is a 190 D13 with the thicker armored glass. The A-3, from what I've read, had 30mm. Later aircraft (A6 or A8 on) had 50 to 60mm thick.
Dakpilot Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 In an ideal world refraction would be modelled, but we don't have that luxury....The FW190 cockpit has a more obvious issue than any other due to the design, if modelled as if it had no glass the view is very unhistoric and unnatural, and not how it was designed. Which is why there has been ten years of bar talk only related to FW190 Cheers Dakpilot 1
FuriousMeow Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 In an ideal world refraction would be modelled, but we don't have that luxury....The FW190 cockpit has a more obvious issue than any other due to the design, if modelled as if it had no glass the view is very unhistoric and unnatural, and not how it was designed. Which is why there has been ten years of bar talk only related to FW190 Cheers Dakpilot But when there is evidence of a bar, it is ignored - the entire life span of the 190 had changes to it. So a D9 or D13 cockpit will be different than an A6, and the A6 will be different than the A-3 in terms of armor as there are Sturmbocke A-6s. So you can't call the D13 evidence of the A-3 having super thick armored glass. Only the evidence that shows no bar, or shows refraction through super thick armored glass that may not have been installed on the early 190s, is taken into consideration - all of the time. When there is a bar in the way, it is dismissed - that is why the entire 10 years of bar talk is disengenous.
Jaws2002 Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 Then there is this. Of course it has been said that it is 30mm rather than 50mm (again, said - I have seen zero evidence it isn't 50mm glass), but refraction would still be present. 30mm_not_60mm_so_no_refraction.jpg That actually looks like the best example of refraction. You will also take note, the numbers on the yellow surface - they drop as well. Refraction has an impact on everything viewed through it - not just the lower frame, therefore aircraft are going to drop several inches when transitioning from the side panels to in front of the armored glass. I think you still don't understand one aspect of this. Yes everything in view, when viewed through this armored glass, drops with about an inch, but it doesn't drop like a postcard that's sitting immediately in front of the glass, but as it is in real world. An object right in front of your nose, like those machine gun bumps or the dreaded bar, are going to be very noticeable, while dropping the enemy plane, 200 meters away, in your gun sight, with one inch is not noticeable without power full magnified optics. And even then, it doesn't matter if you aim an inch lower. The further away from the viewing point the less shift you'll notice due to the refraction. Think of two the refracted line of sight like a paralel line just one inch lower than the clear line of sight. At shooting g ranges from this planes, that little offset is negligible and that's why all this can be easily fixed with simple 3D fixes. The image was posted few days ago and I think is very relevant. IT'S th we same effect in me262. Look how much the nose of the plane is dropped and how little the edge of the roof is offset. And that's just few meters away. 2
Anw.StG2_Tyke Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 But when there is evidence of a bar, it is ignored - the entire life span of the 190 had changes to it. So a D9 or D13 cockpit will be different than an A6, and the A6 will be different than the A-3 in terms of armor as there are Sturmbocke A-6s. So you can't call the D13 evidence of the A-3 having super thick armored glass. Only the evidence that shows no bar, or shows refraction through super thick armored glass that may not have been installed on the early 190s, is taken into consideration - all of the time. When there is a bar in the way, it is dismissed - that is why the entire 10 years of bar talk is disengenous. 30mm_not_60mm_so_no_refraction.jpg Dat refraction... I don't know what do you think an object gets shifted down by refraction. I can tell you that it is some centimeters... maybe 2 fingers width. And the refraction has nothing to do with the distance of an object. Only the angle of the object to the armored glass. So a plane which is 150m away and is shifted by 2 cm you won't notice that a lot. I even would say, you wouldn't see a difference between that. 1
Jaws2002 Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 (edited) Fw190 done right, many years ago, in Target Torbruk. Free expansion for a free game! Edited August 14, 2014 by Jaws2002
CreepiJim Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 (edited) A good and scientific thread. This is probably the most discussed issue in every FW-190 featuring game forum... This picture has been posted before and is exactly what the fuzz is all about, because it clearly shows the "line of sight" and there is not the slightest doubt about the reality of "refraction" still the discussion continues. Has anyone ever thought about asking a armoured glass company, like the German GuS GmbH that do armored glass for most european APCs for insight? Or bought a cheap glass block? It could be so simple, but this discussion is going on for years now, denying science and common sense (and every physics classes in optics). And don't hit me for posting this link: secret, don't report me! Edited August 14, 2014 by III./StG2_Blechbohrer 1
ducs Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 (edited) Great post! Also, I just want to say how amazing of a job the modeling team has done so far! The side-by-side comparisons really show the genius and talent that has gone into the game. While there might be subtle changes needed, like the one in this thread and slight FM adjustments, I really just want to say I am blown away by the quality and massive potential I have seen up to this point. S! Edited August 14, 2014 by ducs
JG4_Nemesis Posted August 15, 2014 Author Posted August 15, 2014 Very well said, Jaws2002!! @Blechbohrer: I've contacted a amrored glass company here in Germany, and I'm going to visit them next Wednesday.....looks like I will be able to get my hands on a 50mm thick amrored Glass the size of a DIN A4 paper. Should be quite comparable to mimic the Fw190 screen effect. 4
widgeon Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Dat refraction... I don't know what do you think an object gets shifted down by refraction. I can tell you that it is some centimeters... maybe 2 fingers width. And the refraction has nothing to do with the distance of an object. Only the angle of the object to the armored glass. So a plane which is 150m away and is shifted by 2 cm you won't notice that a lot. I even would say, you wouldn't see a difference between that. That's right, of course everything you see through the glass will be affected by refraction, but with greater distance between the prism and the subject the effect is less noticeable. Yes! (above) Very important to understand.
JtD Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 JtD I think you're confusing a prism with a lens.No, I wasn't. You're getting a magnification. But I was still wrong on the key issue. Deleted to not clutter up the topic. 1
CreepiJim Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Good to hear Nemesis. If i was still living in the north, i would've visited GuS who manufacture the periscopes for the leopard and windows of the Fennek for example. If you have the chance, try to position something in the same angle as the hood of the FW, as the view will be tilted downwards.
LizLemon Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) Here are some pictures that I posted in another thread that I believe can be of benefit to this discussion, even though they are not 190s. First, here are some thick 109 armor glass plates. Notice the very clear and obvious distortion of the metal frame holding them. But also of not is how the crack in the floor is less distorted since it is farther away then the frame. Now let us look at this view through an original, un-restored Me 262 cockpit. This is another aircraft with a thick forward armor glass plate, as well as heavy framing and a steep angle. Notice how the visual drop due to refraction is clearly on display. However, yet again we are treated to a differences in how evident that drop is based on how far away the object is from the 262. EDIT: It looks like Jaws posted the second picture I posted above. For some reason that pic did not load the first time I posted in this thread. Edited August 16, 2014 by LizLemon
MilAvHistory Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 Great stuff here. Considering some adjustments were already made tot he FW190 cockpit, I am hoping that a finalized version will take into account the information posted here. S!
BlueVelvet Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 I think the team of 1C and 777 Studios are doing a great job with the BoS project. These guys are both talented programmers and passionate about aviation, and I hope they will deliver us a sim with the highest possible quality and accuracy, and keep the project evolving also after the release in the years to come. They just have to listen to the community (that is the base of their success) and give the community what it wants - thats what we love them for. Yes, let's hope for that. But the point is not to give the community what it wants in this particular case, but what it should be like)
BlueVelvet Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 60mm is ~2.3". The 190 has 60mm bullet resistant "glass." The internal left frame holding the glass is visible, that is not 2.3". Yes, it's visible) But the head of the pilot is not normally outside the cockpit looking through the side window, is it?)
JG4_Nemesis Posted August 20, 2014 Author Posted August 20, 2014 Update: I've visited an armored glass manufacturer today, and I've now got a test sample of armored glass in my very own hands. My intention is to film it and make a short youtube video out of it. I'm not a video making expert, but I hope the result will be worth the effort. Stay tuned. 3
BlueVelvet Posted August 21, 2014 Posted August 21, 2014 Nemesis, u've done and still are doing a great research but u haven't mentioned anything about the incorrect width of the side frames.
JG4_Nemesis Posted August 27, 2014 Author Posted August 27, 2014 (edited) Update 2: My Focke Wulf Fw190 Windscreen Video is finally finished and ready. You can watch it here: Edited August 27, 2014 by I/JG27_Nemesis 31
CreepiJim Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 Nice one, Nemesis. Although the hood of the FW is not horizontal, this should be a reference video for every WW2 flight sim developer.
ram0506 Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 The effect shown is really impressive! Thanks for the video and your explanations!
wellenbrecher Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 This was an very interesting thread to read through. Thank you.
SKG51_Joker Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 (edited) Very good but there is one thing where it is weak: The thickness of the armored glass is 150% compared to the real thing. Now a quick research says that refraction index of glass is a characteristic of the material (in this case armored glass) but I wonder if it is completely independent from the thickness of the material. I´d say no, because the light is diverted by a certain angular degree due to the characteristic of the material and depending on the wavelength of the ray. But I´m not perfectly sure if that is right. Other than that: Haleluja, Nemesis finally proofed: Oleg: you is wrong! Edited August 27, 2014 by ZG15_Falke
MACADEMIC Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 Very good video Nemesis! Thank you, great effort! MAC
LLv34_Flanker Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 S! Thank you, Nemesis. Not much left to argue about the issue now.
Blooddawn1942 Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 I never thought, that the refreacton effect is so massive. Thanks for Your effort, Nemesis. This Video should be shared to every Sim developer out there!
Recommended Posts