The new cockpit framing

[MOSQ]

I didn't like the new cockpit framing model in the Ki-84, but live with it.

Then the P-38 frames.

Now the FW-190 frames. The progression has gone from bad but acceptable to far worse and unacceptable for many.

When the P-51, Tempest, P-47,......and so on get their new frames, we are going to have a major gameplay problem.

As posted in other threads, the true view a pilot has is not the same as the view with his head glued to the headrest, with one eye patched over and the other eye with tunnel vision.

HTC, gameplay is suffering with the new cockpit framing model. Please consider going back to the previous policy of gameplay trumps realism.

[Kweassa]

(*whispers*) I personally like it the way it's done....

[IK3]

The new AH2 cockpit standards are good/realistic but i would personaly like to see metric units used on russian/axis planes

btw you can move your head all over the cockpit with track ir equipment:)

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by MOSQ


Now the FW-190 frames. The progression has gone from bad but acceptable to far worse and unacceptable for many.
 

 I'd have to agree with this. and honestly I find it hard to beleive that the visability out of the 190s were THAT bad.
from what I can and deduce form  tell from pictures the two front braces (or whatever they are called) IMO definately too thick and should probably be about 25% thinner. if anything they should impede more of the front side view then the front  center view as they do now.  in any event I think the  vertical vis should be better and theere should be better visability to the front left,right and down past the nose and past the front of the wings.

These pics can kinda show what Im talking about
 and

[TDeacon]

As I mentioned in the other thread, this discussion can be decomposed into 2 areas:

1) The question of whether framing appears too thick when viewed from the head-on-headrest position. This has aesthetic and gameplay consequences.  Resolution of this issue is likely to be made based on plans and photos, as interpreted by the 3-D engine (terminology??).  

2) The question of how to best simulate the ability of a real pilot to see around framing, due to binocular vision and the ability to quickly and precisely shift head position.  This has gameplay consequences only.  Resolution of this issue is likely to be made based on finding game mechanisms which give the NET EFFECT of what we think real pilots experienced in their cockpits.  

I humbly suggest that we keep this distinction in mind when we post to this thread....   :-)

In my opinion, for game play reasons, we should err on the side of greater SA in both of the above areas. Therefore,

For (1), the 3-D model should err on the side of thinner framing, up to just before the point where the plane begins to look strange from the game's normal viewing distance. I assume this is what the previous model did, and it looked fine to me.

For (2), other game mechanisms should exist which yield equivalent effect to binocular vision and head movement ability. The former might be achieved by allowing icons be visible through the canopy frames, at least to some degree. The latter might be achieved by increasing the "move" speeds (simulating head movement), which are currently glacially slow.  BTW, Track-IR is fine, but there should be equivalent game functionality for those who use standard input for looking around.

[Pongo]

If you sat in a fw and put your head back on that leather pad on the back arrmour that is probably the view you would get. If you put your head right up under the windsceen brace like the pilots did then you got a far better view.
It solves the apperant smallness of the revi sight in the game too and the amount of open space under the sight.

[TDeacon]

Pongo,

Are you suggesting a change to my category (1) or to my category (2) to achieve this?  The reason I ask is that HTC would need to proceed differently in those 2 cases.  

Kweassa,

Does your satisfaction with the framing apply to my category (1), (2), or both?  

(I'll never give up...   :-)     )

[MANDO]

Pongo, it is not a matter of how good the frontal view is when you have an eye at the gunsight. It is about the overal lack of visibility that makes it almost impossible to track enemy planes when turning.

I would add that current 190F8 and D9 have lost the bubble canopy, internally both have the same vertical space as A8 and A5. So, even the advantage of better over the nose visibitily raising the head is gone.

[Nath_____]

Deacon--

I don't think anyone is considering you.

[TDeacon]

My influence does not appear to be great.  Still, Kweassa hasn't responded yet...

For what it's worth, I am concerned that if we discuss these 2 topics together, that the gameplay concerns will be rejected based on concensus that the 3-D model is accurate now.  Separating the 2 issues allows the gameplay issue to be dealt with, even if the current 3-D model is generally considered to be acceptable.

[Pongo]

I am saying that the framing is accurate but the view isnt. Because where the pilots eyes were when he was looking forward isnt  modeled accuratly. That is why Pyro posted a picture of a disfigured FW wing when viewed from a certain viewpoint.
The pilots head is in the wrong place which exagurates the impact of the framing. They should both move the pilots head(or provide two postions) and they should find some way to compensate for the lack of periferal and binocular vision. But the biggest issue of the FW vs other aircraft is the mis position of the head of the pilot.

[TDeacon]

Pongo,

When you say "... and they should find some way to compensate for the lack of periferal and binocular vision.", what do you think of (from above): "other game mechanisms should exist which yield equivalent effect to binocular vision and head movement ability. The former might be achieved by allowing icons be visible through the canopy frames, at least to some degree. The latter might be achieved by increasing the "move" speeds (simulating head movement), which are currently glacially slow."?

A global (for all planes) change is probably more likely to be considered by HTC.  When they redo the other cockpits, we may see these problems in other planes as well, and not just FW.

[MANDO]

Pongo, you are free to move the head and save for all the views. Moving the head forward does not resolve enything, in fact, it is even worse for tracking enemies in a turn. Moving the head full backward when looking Up 12 does not resolve the problem neither.

[Pongo]

Never the less, the overbearing nature of the framing(well the rear part of it anyway)is because the head is too far forward.

[DaddyAck]

I like the way the 190s look now, I am quite pleased with it