Author Topic: Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong  (Read 4356 times)

Offline GunnerCAF

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 946
      • Gunner's Grange
Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong
« Reply #45 on: December 31, 2005, 01:38:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
If you move your head position back in the LW rides the bracing is less an issue. But then the gunsight is useless. The Russian rides have a similar problem in that you need to move the head position so far forward to get a useful gunsight that the gauges are pretty much off-screen and you really lose a sense of perspective.  


Here is a work-around I use.  You have two forward views in AH.  One is the default view, the second is the KP8 view.  I set the default view back for visibility, then set the KP8 head position as far forward and up for visability of the gunsight.  I also set the forward down view on the dash so I can read the gages on the new cockpits.

When you press and release KP 8 , it is like moving your head forward and back.  You can sometimes see around these posts.

Gunner
Gunner
Cactus Air Force

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong
« Reply #46 on: December 31, 2005, 01:55:16 PM »
ok here is a screenshot pick of pretty much the same angle and place as the pick 3
And the pics next to each other

(A) Note the location of the uprights.  1 arrow pointing where they are. the other pointing where they should be

(B) Nose. Shouldnt be able to see much of anything here cept a very slight hump

(C) Width of these uprights too thick

(D)- Guages barely readable

(E) and (F) Uprights again too thick (as well as being in the wrong place)

(G)  could be a missing part in pic 3? Or is it another over emphasized bulge? ::Edit:: looking at the other pictues its not a missing part. its just about 10 times too big::

(H) Height too short




« Last Edit: December 31, 2005, 02:21:33 PM by DREDIOCK »
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline BlauK

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5091
      • http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/
Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong
« Reply #47 on: December 31, 2005, 02:27:53 PM »
Some of this has already been discussed etc. in this thread .. about 1/2 way down the thread.

The front windshield is a thick armoured glass and the gaem does not take into account the refraction of light between air and glass. That is why the front vertical frames appear more narrow in real life...

Sample pics from that thread:





I am still amazed how many anti-109 and anti-LW people these threads always draw out from their holes. Are there really so many counterparts in some Spit or other Ally plane threds???


  BlauKreuz - Lentolaivue 34      


Offline BlauK

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5091
      • http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/
Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong
« Reply #48 on: December 31, 2005, 02:35:01 PM »
BTW, does anyone know how the 109's level flight angle is in AH? does it go along the gunsight line or along the some other line?

I think i saw somewhere a line chart showing the plane's level flight direction, gunsight and various ammo trajectories. In that chart the gunsight line was pointing downwards. The gunsight line was already some 2 meters below the level flight line at 400meters in front of the plane!!!


  BlauKreuz - Lentolaivue 34      


Offline Waffle

  • HTC Staff Member
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4849
      • HiTech Creations Inc. Aces High
Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong
« Reply #49 on: December 31, 2005, 02:35:13 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
AH has a problem where the camera view is wrong. The actual measurements for the bars may be accurate (I believe they used actual dimensions) but the way the camera looks they are all squashed together in close proximity, which precludes actual vision to the front of the craft. Add to that the problem with bulges that should not be prominent (I think the same of the 190 series) and you have a severely limited viewpoint in the 109s when instead they ought to look like the p51s.


"Ding Ding Ding! - winner winner! - "

AH has a 90 degree feild of view....anything close and on the peripheral sides is going to look larger......And the 109 was a small cockpit. So the surrounding cockpit from the "eyepoint" is going to be a lot closer. Closer=Bigger and the 90 degree will throw distortion on top of it.

"Ding ding ding - opps, sorry sir - we have to take away your prize..."

Comparing the 51 and the 109s cockpit and trying to get the 109 to look like the 51 is trying to make an apple outta of an orange. Completly different beast.



For grins - added the rail of the canopy lid to screenshot and jerry rigged a gunsite (didnt mess with perspective)..... EDIT- that would be "C" in Drediocks pic :)


 
For Blauks and Drediocks drawings - check this out:
Another thing is getting fooled by the glass distortion of thickness...

the old "put a pencil in a clear glass filled water...and it looks like its broken /shifted by the water"

Prime example is this pic: Green line is the contour of the frame that continues down, but gets defracted or refrected by the glass. (excuse me if those are wrong terms)



Here are a few pics that show that that rail in the above pics doesn't just dissapear or shrink as it looks like it does in the above image, and one that i think is just cool of the pilot / gunsite. BTW the - looking into that canopy - the view sucks....rails are too thick :)





« Last Edit: December 31, 2005, 02:42:44 PM by Waffle »

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong
« Reply #50 on: December 31, 2005, 02:39:03 PM »
Dred, comparing your two screenshots.  

A.  It does look like the uprights are to close to eachother.  In the RL cockpit, they are just outside of the corners of the main gauge area, in the game cockpit they are inside the corners.  Actually, to explain it different, IRL, the inside edges of the uprights line up with the edge of the main gauge area, and in game the outside edges of the uprights are to the inside of that line (not even lined up).  

B.  Are you sure you have the same perspective as in the RL shot?  It seems to me that your perspective may be higher, which means that the bottom curve of the front windshield doesn't blank out the right MG bump.  It is hard for me to compare the two though, since the IRL cockpit does not have a gunsight mounted.

C.  As far as the width goes, you've got two different widths.  Lets say forward width (oriented along the nose-tail axis), and side width (wingtip to wintip axis).  In the in game shot, it is tough to tell them apart (at least for me.  The rear uprights appear to be to thick, but that may be an illusion because of where the camera position is.  Forward width on the back uprights actually appears to be to skinny, unless I'm not looking at the right line.

D.  I really don't have that much truble reading the gauges in game.  

E.  I think the forward uprights are suffering from the same thing the back uprights are, in that it is tough to tell what is "forwards" width, and what is "sideways" width.  I *think* the forward width may be to thick, by looking at the right upright compared to the left upright.  

G.  That is the intake, it may be missing on the RL picture, I'm not certain.

H.  I think your pic is coming from a different perspective than the RL pic, which makes it look as if the cockpit is to smushed, up and down.  

Overall, I think your picture may be slightly behind and above the RL picture.  If you look at the brace on the rear upright, in the RL pic, that is all you can see in the upper right.  In youyr pic, you can see a significant slice of the upright itself.  I think the perspective in game needs to be moved forward some.  If you compare the ammo count bars (i didnt even know 109s had those!) in the RL pic, they are not blanked at all by the bottom lip of the cockpit, they are in a shadow that is being cast by it.  In your pic, the top of the bars are being cut off by the lip, which leads me to believe that the viewpoint is higher than in the RL pic.

Offline BlauK

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5091
      • http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/
Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong
« Reply #51 on: December 31, 2005, 02:46:45 PM »
Originally posted by Waffle BAS

For Blauks and Drediocks drawings - check this out:
Another thing is getting fooled by the glass distortion of thickness...

the old "put a pencil in a clear glass filled water...and it looks like its broken /shifted by the water"




THAT EXACTLY IS THE POINT!!!!!

Fooled? It is not about fooling anyone. That is like saying, dont get fooled by people wearing eye-glasses... they cannot really see well with those optically refracting devices.
It IS what people see in real life from inside of the plane. The refraction is there and works for them to see more in their front view!!!

You are also showing the windshield frames from outside from an angle where they appear the widest. That is like showing the wings from above and trying to say that they would appear so thick from the front.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2005, 02:53:11 PM by BlauK »


  BlauKreuz - Lentolaivue 34      


Offline Waffle

  • HTC Staff Member
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4849
      • HiTech Creations Inc. Aces High
Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong
« Reply #52 on: December 31, 2005, 02:53:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by BlauK
You are also showing the windshield frames from outside from an angle where they appear the widest. That is like showing the wings from above and thrying to say that they would appear so thick from the front.


I'm confused about that? Is there a view  that I should show that would make them thinner?

AFAIK, I dont think theres a way to model glass distortion around edges :)

Offline BlauK

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5091
      • http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/
Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong
« Reply #53 on: December 31, 2005, 02:54:50 PM »
Yes, from inside, from the pilot's position ;)

There is a perfect way to model the refraction... in the same way as the P-51 frames have been made transparent from inside. I suggested that already in that previously mentioned thread .



That pic shows the frames from above. The 1-sided polygons would appear transparent from inside.... like they do in current p-51 :aok
« Last Edit: December 31, 2005, 03:00:05 PM by BlauK »


  BlauKreuz - Lentolaivue 34      


Offline AKFokerFoder+

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 661
Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong
« Reply #54 on: December 31, 2005, 03:02:54 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Urchin
Dred, comparing your two screenshots.  

G.  That is the intake, it may be missing on the RL picture, I'm not certain.

 


It is not missing, check the original picture of the 109s that Dred posted, it is clearly seen as being on the plane.

The 109 intake as part of the front view is something that I think got modeled into 109s from way back, to make it "appear" more realistic. Sort of a flight sim urban myth.

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong
« Reply #55 on: December 31, 2005, 03:03:33 PM »
Waffle, can you post a pic of the RL pic you added the gunsight to next to the in-game pic?  It'd make em easier to compare.

Offline Waffle

  • HTC Staff Member
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4849
      • HiTech Creations Inc. Aces High
Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong
« Reply #56 on: December 31, 2005, 03:04:47 PM »
so now would be the question:

If it can shift the rail (which it's mounted to) with what percieves to be about 1-2 inches....how much should it shift objects further out when through from an edge area?

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong
« Reply #57 on: December 31, 2005, 03:05:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKFokerFoder+
It is not missing, check the original picture of the 109s that Dred posted, it is clearly seen as being on the plane.

The 109 intake as part of the front view is something that I think got modeled into 109s from way back, to make it "appear" more realistic.


Ugh, nevermind... that pic doesnt have the intake either.  Even so, is the first pic of the same plane as the other two pics in the OP's pics?

If you look at Waffle's 3rd pic at the bottom of the first page (White 2), you can see a shot of the intake.  It is below the MG bump on the left hand side.  None of the pic's that Dred posted show it, so if all three of those are from the same plane, that would explain why you can't see it in his RL posted pic.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2005, 03:10:49 PM by Urchin »

Offline Waffle

  • HTC Staff Member
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4849
      • HiTech Creations Inc. Aces High
Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong
« Reply #58 on: December 31, 2005, 03:05:33 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Urchin
Waffle, can you post a pic of the RL pic you added the gunsight to next to the in-game pic?  It'd make em easier to compare.


rawr - it's the same pic posted up earlier in the thread. 3rd pic - first post. or do you want me stick em together in one post?

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong
« Reply #59 on: December 31, 2005, 03:06:36 PM »
Yea waffle, I know it is... only problem is trying to scroll up and down to compare the modified RL pic to the ingame pic.