Author Topic: What happened to the 190s? (Read 2238 times)

FalconSix · « **Reply #15 on:** August 18, 2005, 03:42:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Grits: Yes they did redo them

Falcon: The reason we have 3D and 2D is that the planes are being redone one at a time to the newer (3D) standard. So until every last plane is remodeled (probably be a year or so) you will have some with 2D (old) and some with 3D (new)

The P38s, P51D, Ki-84 are all remodeled to the new standard (Ki-84 being the first of the new), but their cockpits only use simple 2D framing. I guess the polygons were needed someplace else on the model. I however would prefer equality in cockpit modeling instead of a more refined exterior shape.

FalconSix · « **Reply #16 on:** August 18, 2005, 03:44:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
They're all 3D.

No the framing is not. They're just made up of a 2D polygon mesh. It's like the framing is just painted on a glass canopy.

Krusty · « **Reply #17 on:** August 18, 2005, 03:49:57 PM »

Incorrect. They all have 3D frames. It's just that the 190s in real life have very thick frames. Hell, they were modeled off of real dimensions, I bet. But other aircraft have thinner frames and so forth.

FalconSix · « **Reply #18 on:** August 18, 2005, 03:56:02 PM »

No they don't. Just look at them fer christ sake. Move your view sideways and you'll see they have no mass, just two surfaces like a sheet of paper.

straffo · « **Reply #19 on:** August 18, 2005, 04:19:14 PM »

I think Krusty was speaking of the way AH cockpit are made , a contrario to WB or IL2 they are full 3D.

The fact the bar in the 51 have no thickness is not related to the way AH is implement the cockpit.

I just checked , your assertion is false , the frame have thickness enought or not I don't know.

Kweassa · « **Reply #20 on:** August 18, 2005, 05:04:59 PM »

Toldja.

They're all 3D.

FalconSix · « **Reply #21 on:** August 18, 2005, 06:15:51 PM »

Kweassa you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying the cockpit models aren't 3D. I'm saying the canopy framing aren't actually 3D as in solid objects.

Here's our Dora. You can see the bars are solid 3D objects.

Here's the Pony. Notice how the bars have no width if viewed on edge.

Same with the P38. The framing is just a 2D "paper" mesh.

Same with the Ki-84.

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #22 on:** August 18, 2005, 08:12:01 PM »

u got a point dough that bar on the fw is much thicker not to be left flat.

TDeacon · « **Reply #23 on:** August 19, 2005, 12:08:40 AM »

Common guys. True that the FW190 canopies are much thicker than the new 51s. I wish they would thin them, because I used to like FWs. However, why ask HTC to ruin the 51s too. Better to have some canopies where you can deflection shoot than none.

If all canopies are made like FWs, and deflection shooting is made more difficult for all planes, it just makes it harder to get quick kills against maneuvering targets, and therefore harder to survive when fighting against superior numbers. Just speaking for myself of course, but this would ruin the game for me, as I always fly alone.

1K3 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 19, 2005, 01:02:04 AM »

"noooo dont ruin teh framing cuz cant shoot with my current L337 deflection kills"

PS im all for "real" cockpits...

Charge · « **Reply #25 on:** August 19, 2005, 07:09:19 AM »

So 190 is made better as it has the only true 3D framed cpit?

Its prolly an equalizing factor as it would else totally pwn at MA...

-C+

PS. I'd really like to see those frames modelled in other planes, too.

storch · « **Reply #26 on:** August 19, 2005, 07:12:03 AM »

I agree that the "real" canopies should be modelled and bustr's idea is good. but whatever is done should be done across the board equally.

TDeacon · « **Reply #27 on:** August 19, 2005, 08:50:46 AM »

1K3, if you ever need to learn English, I can recommend a good mail order course... :-)

Wilbus · « **Reply #28 on:** August 28, 2005, 09:09:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
looking at some pics i think the cockpit bars of the FW looks thicker.
Still it has a better view as the P38.

Well Bug, the 190 was known for it's exelent all around view. One of the many good things commented on in the RAF report.

The P38, was afaik, not very well known for good views, more the opposit if anything.
It had lots and lots of bars in the cockpit, even the later versions.

The 190, early versions had exelent all around visbility, not to mention the later bubble conpy versions. 190 is one of the most difficult planes to look forward in.

Wilbus · « **Reply #29 on:** August 28, 2005, 09:11:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TDeacon
Common guys. True that the FW190 canopies are much thicker than the new 51s. I wish they would thin them, because I used to like FWs. However, why ask HTC to ruin the 51s too. Better to have some canopies where you can deflection shoot than none.

If all canopies are made like FWs, and deflection shooting is made more difficult for all planes, it just makes it harder to get quick kills against maneuvering targets, and therefore harder to survive when fighting against superior numbers. Just speaking for myself of course, but this would ruin the game for me, as I always fly alone.

Why is it better to have a few planes made easy to shoot in and a few planes more difficult to shoot in? Don't you think this is "unfair" to some people who enjoy flying some planes more then others? Can you imagine the outroar if the P51 forward visbality would be as bad as the 190's?

Better to have all canopies made as real as possible.

Author Topic: What happened to the 190s? (Read 2238 times)

storch