Author Topic: 190 Heaven - NEWS + screenies (Read 4938 times)

Kweassa · « **Reply #75 on:** March 28, 2005, 06:05:06 PM »

How about this?

1K3 · « **Reply #76 on:** March 28, 2005, 06:29:27 PM »

Quote

Here's a side by side pic of 190 cockpit and new AH version.

It looks like its almost taken from the same distance from the gunsight... notice how much "slimmer" the lines are.

Did HTC replace the real 190 ammo counter (left side of the upper dashboard with at least 4 bars for machine guns and cannons) with cheeeesy flap, and trim indicators???? THATS GHEY!

ps HTC should fix the frame bars and the gunsites on 190 before it comes out.

Cobra412 · « **Reply #77 on:** March 28, 2005, 06:38:32 PM »

Not only are you looking at this in a zoomed position but every photo you've produced shows it with the canopy open and at an off angle.

Here's some that show a bit more details. The canopy rail is infact fairly large and the forward view is fairly obstructed.

TDeacon · « **Reply #78 on:** March 28, 2005, 07:39:45 PM »

Very nice work guys, however, I have 2 requests:

1) Please make the canopy framing a bit less obstructive. Remember, in the game it is harder to move your head around than in real life (the "move" commands are very slow). Therefore, in compensation, it might be appropriate to make the canopy framing err on the light side rather than on the heavy side.

2) Please make the gauges a bit more readable. I like nice graphics, but if that's all I liked I would play IL2. The GAMEPLAY of AH is its strong point, and making the gauges hard to read doesn't help us older players. The level of readability of the gauges in the current planes would be fine, and maybe this could be achieved in these new gauges with slightly more noticeable needles and numbers. They would still look more realistic, but also be readable. Note this thread: http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=143499&highlight=chigger+gauges

Again, thanks for your efforts; nice work overall. :-)

Nath_____ · « **Reply #79 on:** March 28, 2005, 08:01:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Cobra412
Not only are you looking at this in a zoomed position but every photo you've produced shows it with the canopy open and at an off angle.

Here's some that show a bit more details. The canopy rail is infact fairly large and the forward view is fairly obstructed.

Your photos are even more at an off angle than mine. They are OUTSIDE friggin cockpit! Try posting some from INSIDE with the cockpit closed. From what I can see, the width of the sides (from port to starboard) doesn't look larger as they obscenely do in the new AH cockpit, rather the closed cockpit frame adds more towards the aft rather than towards the center of the cockpit. Yea?

Another thing, your shots of the front windshield panes aren't good for this discussion because they are show from the side! Hence it is impossible to see how THICK they are in proportion to the size of the glass. As in, a shot from directly above or from the front, or behind the gunsight would be more helpful.

GScholz · « **Reply #80 on:** March 28, 2005, 08:02:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Cobra412
Not only are you looking at this in a zoomed position but every photo you've produced shows it with the canopy open and at an off angle.

Here's some that show a bit more details. The canopy rail is infact fairly large and the forward view is fairly obstructed.

In all your pictures you can see how thin the bars are. The depth of the bars seems right, but they are too thick.

It is especially evident in your last picture.

Nath_____ · « **Reply #81 on:** March 28, 2005, 08:10:34 PM »

Oh yah, and I'm almost 90% in agreement with Kweassa's rendition. That looks much better.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #82 on:** March 28, 2005, 08:21:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TDeacon

2) Please make the gauges a bit more readable. I like nice graphics, but if that's all I liked I would play IL2. The GAMEPLAY of AH is its strong point, and making the gauges hard to read doesn't help us older players. The level of readability of the gauges in the current planes would be fine, and maybe this could be achieved in these new gauges with slightly more noticeable needles and numbers. They would still look more realistic, but also be readable. Note this thread: http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=143499&highlight=chigger+gauges

You da man. You da man.

Octavius · « **Reply #83 on:** March 28, 2005, 08:24:38 PM »

Quote

(Image removed from quote.)

That canopy handle (left) would be visible (and blocked on the right side?). Is that a standard for all 190s or is that particular crate modified?

GScholz · « **Reply #84 on:** March 28, 2005, 08:38:00 PM »

I can't see them in any of the other photos, but I think that is a Dora or Ta. Perhaps they had the handles there?

Nath_____ · « **Reply #85 on:** March 28, 2005, 09:01:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
photos, but I think that is a Dora or Ta.

The only Ta 152 that exists is in storage in Silver Hill, MD by the Smithsonian. It's currently awaiting restoration, and it's in pretty horrible shape. This is definately not a Ta-152.

Nath_____ · « **Reply #86 on:** March 28, 2005, 09:14:22 PM »

The pics that Cobra posted are of the Fw 190D-9 at the USAF museum in Dayton. Note the missing Revi gunsight.

Nath_____ · « **Reply #87 on:** March 28, 2005, 09:30:29 PM »

Some more pics I scanned from ISBN 4-499-20547-6

Fw190D9/D13

Nath_____ · « **Reply #88 on:** March 28, 2005, 09:31:27 PM »

GScholz · « **Reply #89 on:** March 28, 2005, 09:43:43 PM »

Excellent photos, thanks!

When you see the width of the canopy compared to the width of the bars, it is quite clear they are too thick.