Author Topic: 190 Heaven - NEWS + screenies (Read 5132 times)

GScholz · « **Reply #105 on:** March 29, 2005, 01:16:04 AM »

I find the new dials easier to read than the old ones.

mora · « **Reply #106 on:** March 29, 2005, 02:39:01 AM »

I seriously hope they have metric readings when they come out. Those "fake" metric dials are simply ludicrous.

Regarding window frames. I'f we want it to be realistic then they should appear as wide as they appear to a person with 2 healthy eyes sitting in the cockpit. 2D photograps are not how they should be modelled after. The older one is closer to the truth than the new one. The most realistic option would be something in between.

Cobra412 · « **Reply #107 on:** March 29, 2005, 04:09:44 AM »

Mora I've been working on some authentic dials for the Mustang. Problem is I'm sure folks will complain because they may be hard to read with out putting a notch of zoom in. I've become very familiar with the planes I fly and know where my gauges are. I also know the rough layout of them so I don't have to do anything more than a quick glance to what direction the needle is pointing to know what it's indicating. I don't have to stare at it to know what it's saying.

Mora the older model was missing parts of the wind screen frame and it didn't model any bulk. It was totally flat as if someone put colored tape on a pure glass canopy to make it look like it had a frame. I'm sure it was done to keep down on the polys but it still didn't look right. They had to give the frames thickness to make them look right. Maybe they put a bit much into this one. One other thing that may give it some depth is to add the glass into the frame with some imperfections. Maybe a slight tint to it with some circular and random scratches. Very light but enough to know it's there. That would give the cockpit a little more depth to it.

The one thing that still bothers me is the fact that the canopies themselves have no life to them. I've sat in the F-15 enough times to know any canopy that has been on there for awhile has some type of wear. You'll also notice in certain lighting conditions that there are circular scratches on the canopies from polishing or lack there of. Now it's almost as if you can reach out of the canopy frame directly to the sky.

straffo · « **Reply #108 on:** March 29, 2005, 05:27:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
I find the new dials easier to read than the old ones.

Beware , the pict look to have been cropped from an hight resolution.

GScholz · « **Reply #109 on:** March 29, 2005, 05:40:43 AM »

I believe this is what you're refering to Cobra:

A subtle reflection map and bumpmap scratches on the canopy makes all the difference. Notice the subtle reflection lighting around the curved canopy frame.

Problem is I don't think the AH2 3d-engine even handles transparancy properly now.

GScholz · « **Reply #110 on:** March 29, 2005, 05:42:14 AM »

Cobra412 · « **Reply #111 on:** March 29, 2005, 05:44:10 AM »

GS yes something to that affect. Granted it is eyecandy and doesn't make the game unplayable as it is. I just think it would add to the game.

GScholz · « **Reply #112 on:** March 29, 2005, 05:47:08 AM »

Indeed it would.

MANDO · « **Reply #113 on:** March 29, 2005, 06:55:02 AM »

A pretty good reference from inside Fw190 cockpit:

Triplane.net

Frontal view, sadly there is no gunsight but it is clear enough that our gunsight is too small and too low, and the default pilot head is also too low.

Kweassa · « **Reply #114 on:** March 29, 2005, 07:02:34 AM »

I think it all depends on basically how thick the struts and bars would be modelled in the 3D model.

In case of IL2/FB's Fw190s, the biggest problem they had was that the cockpit wasn't really 3D. It was pseudo-3D/'bumpy 2D' - I'm sure GScholz would know what I'm talking about, since he says he is a 3D modeller.

The IL2/FB cockpits were using 2D photorealistic images for the backgroundm which was combined with a few '3D' surfaces that protrudes out to form a facade. None of the objects in the cockpit were real 3D - so they would be disastrous if somebody could move their head and see the various doohickeys from other angles. (and this, was why Oleg couldn't possibly allow customizable head positions in IL2/FB - they'd have to remodel all of the cockpits for all of the planes to full 3D)

To make matters worse, the cockpits weren't even 'inside the 3D model'. In other words, IL2/FB cockpits were separate piece of artwork that had nothing to do with the 3D modelling of the plane - so, if you switch from external to cockpit view, the 'camera' doesn't move from outside to the inside of the 3D model, but changes the computer screen to show a separately modelled cockpit screen.

However, AH cockpits are (while it did suffer from loss of visual quality due to simplification) true 3D 'virtual cockpits' from the beginning to the end.

If the 3D dimensions of the struts and stuff are modelled right, they'd look different in thickness from all angles, since the head positions are customizable.

I do think the 'perspective' is quite a bit exaggerated in Natedog's original cockpit pic.. but I think we'll just have to see for ourselves what the results would yield.

ps) maybe someone with 3D modelling skills/software could come up with a quick polygon mock-up to see what it would look like..??

Creamo · « **Reply #115 on:** March 29, 2005, 07:17:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by mora
I seriously hope they have metric readings when they come out. Those "fake" metric dials are simply ludicrous.

Really? I used to hate how everything was those same boring looking fantasy gages and wanted realistic guages for immersion, metric it it fit, even if I would struggle reading them. Truth be told, AH is a game of winning by knowing exactly how fast you are going right down to the digit. But after seeing the compromise with the better looking more realistic guages, with the numbers/format I am used to reading, I think it's a terrific idea.

And the bars on the 190 don't look so bad to me. Close enough it's matter of opinion me thinks, not much advantage if you shave off alittle bit. One thing I did get out of the thread with all those cool pictures is I'm still amazed at how little fwd view there was. Just not much there in a cramped cockpit.

GScholz · « **Reply #116 on:** March 29, 2005, 08:43:59 AM »

It's not about advantage. It's about it not looking right. It is the wrong shape, size and it looks like it is made from solid cast iron. It looks ok for a window frame I guess, but we're not modelling the bridge of the Bismarck here!

GScholz · « **Reply #117 on:** March 29, 2005, 08:46:33 AM »

Also you'll notice in the picture Mando posted that the front framing aren't square bars like in the 3d model, but rather a wedge construction of two plates.

Octavius · « **Reply #118 on:** March 29, 2005, 09:44:11 AM »

I still don't understand how the new guages are unreadable. My eyesight isn't bad and they are very clear to me... My desktop is at 1024x1280 and I fly at that resolution. I assume those with poor vision use 1024x768 or some lesser resolution. That screenshot is 1181x773. Ingame, 1024x768 is plenty big enough.

What exactly is unreadable about them? Contrast? Size? Color!?

You don't need to know if it says Steigt, ATA, etc. Remember the gauge, remember the needle position, If you are unable to view the needle position

While in combat, you read the gauge to make sure it's the altimeter? Memorize the gauge, its position, memorize the needle position, the BIG numbers (only a point or two smaller than the ammo counters), and you're in business.

Maybe we've got a bunch of legally blind customers playing. Sorry, but it's beyond my comprehension.

***

Back to the subject: The basic structures of IL2/LOMAC and Aces High cockpits do not allow for a fair comparison.

slimm50 · « **Reply #119 on:** March 29, 2005, 10:11:49 AM »

Oct and JB73, your avatars should NOT appear so close together. I's just too damned funny!