Real cockpit and Aces High cockpit comparisons

[JAWS2003]

Flugwerk  FW-190 A8






I like the FW-190 pit in AH. After flying FW-190 for few years in Il-2 and FB+AEP+PF, heck AH Foke Wulf cockpit is like a mustang for me.
 On the other hand I'm not afraid to engage any aircraft I meat in FB when I fly FW-190.

[Delirium]

I still say the P38G's armored windscreen is slightly too low also... if picture hanger was up, I'd post some pics.

[Karnak]

Crump,

It looks to me like the inner side of the framing should angle inward while the outer edge goes pretty much straight up leading to thicker framing at the top.  It should also be shorter than it is in AH by maybe 20 to 30%.  Other than that the AH Spit cockpit is pretty close visibility wise.

I look forward to seeing your cockpit shots.

Debonair,

I tried to match the size and position as best I could.  It isn't perfect, but I think it is close enough to give an idea.

Charge,

You're welcome.  I agree with your take on the differences.  It is closer than I thought it was going to be too.

As to the mirrors, I don't think they would be very useful really as the gave such slight warning and in the wideangle (default) view an enemy aircraft would be about 3 pixels at 1600x1200 when he opened fire.

TDeacon,

I used the zoomed in view for the in game Spitfire shot, so no wide angle lense there.  It should all match as the "zoomed in" view is actually just a correct view based on the field of view offered by a monitor.

[TDeacon]

Karnak

Zoomed-in view is adjustable over a range; assume you mean you were zoomed in all the way?  I suppose I need to measure the degrees of arc in the full-zoomed view to determine the degree to which the "fisheye lens" effect is still there.  

In any case, however, my overall argument still seems valid, as even if the exagerated effect of framing is reduced in full-zoom, it is a special case.  The shape of the 3-D model affects all magnifications in forward view.  Also, consider the head-movement differences between AH framing and real-life framing, etc., as I mentioned previously.  

I think this is not just a visual issue, but a game-play issue as well.  For this reason, we should aim for accuracy tempered for "net effect", rather than accuracy of a particular element taken out of context.  I think the game is better, to the extent that it allows players to build special skills in various (reasonably realistic) areas to overcome odds.  Deflection shooting skill is one such area, which helps allow one to overcome odds disparities typical in the MA.  If such improvements were not possible, then the outcome would be mostly a function of the size of the horde one is flying with.  This makes the game boring.

[FUNKED1]

Two words:  focal length
Grunherz made the same mistake a few years back.

[Hornet33]

I think the cockpits are fine. HTC is doing a great job of getting it real close.

Remember guys...Good enough is good enough, where as perfect is often a major pain in the prettythang, and not worth the trouble anyway.

[TDeacon]

I agree HTC is doing a good job with the cockpits.  

I particularly like the way they appear to have backed off from the overly-restrictive framing style of the FWs, when doing the later P-51s and Spits.  All I am doing is arguing against reversing this trend, as some posters to this thread seem to prefer the restrictive FW cockpit style (for some unknown reason).

[Karnak]

TDeacon,

How far you need to be zoomed in to make it have no wideangle or narrowangle effect depends to some extent on the size of your screen.  I made that top shot on a 21" monitor so I should not be zoomed in as much as somebody using a 19", 17" or, heaven forbid, a 15" monitor.

Basically I just tried to match the photo as best I could and then cropped it.  I think it came out pretty close.  The real Spit's gunsight sits lower than the AH one, the framing gets thicker towards the top of the armored glass on the real one, the armored glass are is smaller vertically and the top framing curves around and down faster on the real one.  Overall it is pretty close, but with some room for improvement.

I don't think they should move away from doing cockpits like the Fw190's.  If the cockpit did have framing that thick then it should in the game too.  I think the more accurate the framing is the better.

FUNKED,

I don't follow.  Could you describe the effect you're talking about?

[TDeacon]

Karnak,

Almost certain that monitor size has nothing to do with perspective shown in the game, but just with the size of the image.  I seriously doubt HTC crops (or otherwise modifies) screen image based on monitor size.  

With respect to "accurate" framing, if I understand what you are saying, you prefer the framing to "look like" a picture of the real thing.  I define "accurate" more broadly to include the effect on game play, as I like AH as a game, and not merely as a graphical exercise.  

(I appologize in advance for the following digression)

It all depends on what we each mean by "accurate".  To take an example from another hobby area, some people think that an "accurately" colored  model of a real object must match the color of paint samples from a real object.  In a broader context, this is not necessarily so, due to the concepts of "scale color" (lighter with scale distance), and "relative color" (brain evaluates colors based relative to adjacent colors).

[Karnak]

TDeacon,

Don't be absurd.  Of course they don't.

What I was saying is that which level of zoom in actually displayed a correct image for eliminating the wideangle effect depends on your monitor size.  The smaller your monitor the more you need to zoom in to have the image be the correct size.

[Charge]

"Remember guys...Good enough is good enough, where as perfect is often a major pain in the prettythang, and not worth the trouble anyway."

And what would FW190 framing look like if there would not have been people not satisfied in it?  It would be a real pain in the prettythang for FW drivers like myself.

-C+

[hitech]

We do not take liberties with cockpit framing. Either we messed up a frame, or not.  The pictures should match the screen shots if they are taken from the same view. But with the distances we are talking about very small changes in camera position can make things look drasitcly different.

HiTech

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Two words:  focal length
Grunherz made the same mistake a few years back.

I thought your resoning back then was that a 2d picture could never replicate the unique perspective of AH and that they cant be used for direct comparsion no matter what...

[GRUNHERZ]

Waffle BAS:

All tho0se pictures show is that P51D had a big bubble that streched va few feet bedind the pilots rear head armor.  There really isnt much difference in width between P51D cockpits and 109 cockpits, the 51 is just a few inches wider.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with your pictures, especially the spitfire ones...  Cockpit size has nothing to do with visibility.  

Heck even british pilots said the fw190 had a better view thanm spitfire.

[BlauK]

Here are some screenshots and comparisons of photos presented earlier in this thread about P-51 and 109 with Erla haube.

Comparing the approximate widths of the side frames to pilots' faces. It see3ms that the 109 side frame is about the same width, maybe even slightly more narrow.



This is how it is currently in AH2. They seem pretty even.. 109 may seem a bit wider.



Notice how in th eview from inside the side frame is a lot more restrictive in 109. The thickness inside the cockpit plays a big role... maybe the p-51 had so little thickness, I dont know. What is more interesting here is marked with A and B. Compare the windshield frames!!! Then look at the next picture with the same frames from outside...



...they are about equal from outside!!! How can this be? ...look at next picture.



In p-51 these frames are transparent from inside They are visible only from outside. I suppose the outer canopy polygons are defined 1-sided so the texture is shown only on the outer side of the surface.