FW190 Front views?

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kweassa
"You is wrong", eh?

[Pyro]

The 190 canopy frames were redone from when the initial screenshots were posted.  We have revised them as far as we can, but ultimately, we are dealing with actual dimensions and not just a look.  For example, the forward braces are what are most commonly criticized, but we can't make it any thinner.  We know we're dealing with 50mm glass and that's how thick it brace is.

Our models are fully 3D.  To find a problem with the shape, don't just look at it from a single angle.  Examine it from all angles, inside and out.  Perspective is a big factor.  For example, someone could post the following screenshot and use it as a critique that the wings of the 190 is built completely out of scale and out of whack.  But if you measure everything and look at it from a different viewpoint, you'll see that that is not the case at all.

[Pongo]

Pyro, what ever the 3d modeling reasons the effect for the pilots view is more important than having some brace exaclty the width it was.
Obviolsy you must agree that the forward view in the 190 is restrictive and would not be called supperior by anyone that had experiance with the Typhoon like those brit pilots would have had.

Can we test that the view examples that crumb posted will work on the 190 in the game?  As beautifle and "atmospheric" as the new cockpit is the most important thing is that it function like the real 190 cockpit, not that a 2d picture of it looks like a 2d picture of a 190 on the ground.

[CHECKERS]

" However, the width of the canopy bars and struts, can be compared - and it is too dang thick.

Especially two frontal struts - they are just waaaaaay too thick, even if we consider that Fw190A-8s had thicker armoured glass than the earlier 190s. " Kweassa.....






I agree .... The new frontal view bars are a beast to look thru...

  The rest of it is a work of art....

   CHECKERS

[MANDO]

Pyro, IMO, what you should look for is a way to have the most accurate feeling from within the cockpit (and parts of own plane that are seen from within the cockpit).

You should consider that the biggest 3D 190 that we will see from outside usually will be no more than 5 cm long (with the exception of very close formation flying).

[Thrawn]

Yes, let's bring nerfing to AH.  

[Nath_____]

I examined the 190 cockpi from all angles.  It still looks too big.  I'll have to try and get my hands on some more detailed pictures.

[Zwerg]

Originally posted by Naudet
[...]
In reality the fact that a human has two eyes which are about 4 inches apart, will counteract even broad framework. My cars frontal window frame is around 3-4 inches thick but is no hindrance at all.
[...]

That's it.

I posted in another thread:
Realistic Cockpit.
1) All instruments and indicators are visible by eye movement.
     -->No need to move head position by pressing a key
2) The thickness of the cockpit framework is reduced. In RL a short intuitive head movement enables a pilot to "look around" the framework. Or in other words: imagine driving a car with 1 eye closed and the head fixed at the head restraint.
     -->No need to move head position by pressing a key

Another way: make all struts in all planes transparent.

[Kweassa]

Ironically, I don't find it too uncomfortable.. must be because I also fly IL2/FB. If you get used to the Fw190s there, AH2 Fw190 cockpits are like transparent fish bowl.


ps) If the dimensions really are correct, my opinion is that it is enough.

[Naudet]

Pyro, just modeling the braces/framework to original dimension will not create the same visibility as from the real cockpit.

I always though AH was about giving a right "feeling", and cockpit view is one of the few points were modeling to the original dimension will contradict the right "feeling".

Though the old model was a compromise, the result was excellent. One felt in the FW190 the great search view any pilot described. Now it's gone.

That huge top bar makes any lag pursuit, merge or low 6 approach a gambling session, cause one can only imagine were the bad guy will be once he is back in view. Even with TrackIR i am not able to look around those frames and track a moving target in my forward sector.
For me the new modelling renders the FW190 useless, as i can't outfly what i can't see.


P.S.: To be honest, view modelling was the issue that forced me out of FA3 and IL2:FB. Now please don't let it force me out of AH.

[Crumpp]

Especially two frontal struts - they are just waaaaaay too thick, even if we consider that Fw190A-8s had thicker armoured glass than the earlier 190s. " Kweassa.....

The armored glass is the same on all FW-190A air superiority fighter variants.  The Rustsatz's 7 and 8 kit's mounted additional armour in order to close to very short ranges and conduct a stern attack on a bomber formation.  They are found in a very few specialized units designated "Sturmstaffel".  The members of the "Sturmstaffel" were triple volunteers who took an oath to bring down a bomber each sortie, even if it meant ramming and their own death.  They were very close to being a Teutonic version of the Kamikaze and their aircraft are very far from a commonly found FW-190 variant.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

Those were the one that Galland hotly opposed, right?
RAMMJAEGER. ?

[MANDO]

Originally posted by Angus
Those were the one that Galland hotly opposed, right?
RAMMJAEGER. ?

At first, sturmböck units were not supposed to ram the enemy bombers. Later, the wings of some sturmböck 190s were reinforced to be able to cut B17s wings. The pilots were not kamikaze at all, they were allowed to bail out before or after the crash.

[Crumpp]

Hi Angus!

Rammkommando Elbe was formed under Hajo Herrmann, same guy who pioneered the "Wilde Sau" concept, very late in the war.  

Although many FW-190A R7 and R8 variants were pressed into "Rammjager" service, that was not their original intent behind the design.  In fact all "rammjager" aircraft were stripped down.

The "Sturm" units were trained "specialized" units for bomber interception.  Although they did take an oath to shoot down a bomber or ram it they were not the same thing as "rammjager".  The Sturmstaffel was considered an elite unit.  They undertook a very hazardous job but took measures to mitigate the risk.  They heavily armored the FW-190's and attacked en mass.  Oscar says they thought of themselves like the heavily armored knights of medieval legend.  They would form up online, and charge across the sky.  Each Rotte would attack one bomber at close range from the six o'clock position. They adopted the Mounted Knight as their symbol.  Although the unit took 500 percent casualties, suicide was not the endstate.  The mission itself was extremely hazardous and they were expected to do their duty.

The "rammjager" were formed in the last months of the war and included any flyable aircraft the units could find.  They were the German equivalent of the Kamikaze.  Most of them had little to no training other than how to fly the plane and were recruited from the lower scoring pilot school candidates. They carried little to no ammo and their sole mission was to ram a bomber and destroy the USAAF's will to fight.  The small amount of ammo they did carry was only to defend themselves against fighters.  Their mission was to find the bombers, pick one, fly straight at it and collide producing maximum shock effect on the surviving bomber crews.

It's a common misconception.  Many people think the R7 and R8 is the "rammjager".  It is not.  A different unit with different philosophy's to accomplish the same thing.  One sought a cool professional willing to take enormous risk.  The other sought any brave and desperate soul willing to do the mission.  In fact talented pilots were turned away from the "rammjagers" as they were needed for the war.

http://www.afmuseum.com/friends/journal/frj_251.html

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

TY mate
Seen so much misleading stuff about this, so I knew I'd get the answer here