Author Topic: Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong (Read 4359 times)

nimble · « **Reply #30 on:** December 30, 2005, 03:00:14 PM »

fix plz

Waffle · « **Reply #31 on:** December 30, 2005, 04:09:15 PM »

ok kiddos -

lets do some size comparisons and guestimations on pictures.....

Here's a good one:

So what are the Sizes of A, B and C.
Note: green grid on concrete outdoor tiles - could those be 12" square?

My guess is that C is probaby around 2 inches -

With the other two being 3 -3/4" to 4" - maybe smidge more

eilif · « **Reply #32 on:** December 30, 2005, 04:14:20 PM »

didnt they have some thicker armored glass in the front window? Its got a couple of cracks running down it, not what i would think would be used for a combat plane. Looks who ever did the refurbishing did a bad job, and who ever was storing it even worse. Looks like the frames were meant to hold a thicker peice of glass too. Anyone else got some reference pics to support the thickness of that glass? Whats the yellow on the bottom, calking?

Toad · « **Reply #33 on:** December 30, 2005, 04:17:36 PM »

Just curious...how many of the posters in this thread have sat in a 109 cockpit?

Or any of the major fighters of WW2?

Of THOSE guys that have actually sat in one of the fighter cockpits for 30 minutes or so (not 3 minutes at an airshow)... just those guys..... how many think the view out of ANY of the same cockpits in the game is "just like the real thing"?

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #34 on:** December 30, 2005, 08:30:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Just curious...how many of the posters in this thread have sat in a 109 cockpit?

Or any of the major fighters of WW2?

Of THOSE guys that have actually sat in one of the fighter cockpits for 30 minutes or so (not 3 minutes at an airshow)... just those guys..... how many think the view out of ANY of the same cockpits in the game is "just like the real thing"?

All the more reason to make the views out of the planes....Viewable;)

AKFokerFoder+ · « **Reply #35 on:** December 31, 2005, 02:17:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
All the more reason to make the views out of the planes....Viewable;)

I hate to see you wasting time on this subject Drediock, nothing will change

zorstorer · « **Reply #36 on:** December 31, 2005, 07:12:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Widewing
In terms of performance, AH2 109G-10 was always the 109K-4.

All 109s were updated, with the G-10 not representing any real 109, it received the graphical update to the K-4.

By the way, I also agree that the cockpit framing is excessively thick.

My regards,

Widewing

True, but then what about the Spit Vc? I realize that the Vb would be a hanger queen at that point. I still think more is better in terms of plane selection. Not everyone on here goes for the late war monsters. I usually take up a plane desgined and built in the 30's

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #37 on:** December 31, 2005, 09:43:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKFokerFoder+
I hate to see you wasting time on this subject Drediock, nothing will change

I THINK I know what your referring to.

In any event.
in this case it might because the evidence that the forward view is incorrect is pretty concrete.

The 190's were fixed with less evidence.

Crossmembers are a tad too thick from the inside perspective. Im thinking they may have the angle at which they are viewed off a bit and should be trimmed Im guessing about 15%

The two humps on the nose are completely off. Its not even a close competition on that issue
Wrong size, wrong shape ,wrong position.
Look at the thid pick down in the post. slide to the right just a hair and that is the position I fly the same plane at.
What I see in the game is these two huge humps off to the sides and the nose in the center.
Where in the pick those humps are barely visable and you cant see much if anything of the nose at all. The very shape of them isnt even right.

I tried last night and cant even get a view that looks similar to that pic LOL

Finally look at the guages in the pick. The numbers are crisp good contrast against their background and fairly easy to read. Not at all unlike the american planes that were redone in the game.

In the game they are a fuzzy gray color that are hard to make out without zoooming almost all the way in.
and forget about knowing what alt Im at. I haveta guess it unless I zoom all the way in.

Wanna know how I judge my alt now?
Without zooming in?

Either Im in the air or Im on the ground.
When I see trees I know Im close to the ground.
When I clear the high cloud tops I know Im around 18K

Outside of that, Im guessing it

Zwerg · « **Reply #38 on:** December 31, 2005, 10:25:35 AM »

It's simple.
If struts and framework had been such an obstacle like in AH, they would have got rid of in RL in the early 30s.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #39 on:** December 31, 2005, 10:49:35 AM »

just did a side by side comparison using the same angle as the pic was taken in the game.
Noticed more stuff

Frontmost windscreen is too narrow.
First crossmember at the top of windscreen too thick.

Front uprights angled and positioned completely wrong making them too thick and making the windscreen too narrow (width wise)
Uprights closest to the pilot too thick by about 25%
overall the cockpit looks too narrow (minor thing)

Nose itself is not visable at all in the pic yet very much visable in the game

Krusty · « **Reply #40 on:** December 31, 2005, 11:11:40 AM »

Examine, if you will, the following image:

Note how it seems to feel more spacious than the default AH cockpit? Wonder WHY?

Look at the perspective. The average 50mm camera lens is about as close as you can get to replicating what the human eye can see, that's why it's so common. Now compare to AH's cockpit, the lens is all out of whack.

The image: The side windows help a LOT, the cockpit is narrow at the top, so the entire instrument display is not blocking the entire 180-degree view to the front.

Note that this is VERY similar to the way the new p51s had their cockpits done. Very wide side views that are more than helpful, and a skinny instrument panel that does not block/hinder forward sight.

AH has a problem where the camera view is wrong. The actual measurements for the bars may be accurate (I believe they used actual dimensions) but the way the camera looks they are all squashed together in close proximity, which precludes actual vision to the front of the craft. Add to that the problem with bulges that should not be prominent (I think the same of the 190 series) and you have a severely limited viewpoint in the 109s when instead they ought to look like the p51s.

This *MIGHT* simply be fixed by moving head position and the view angle/position in the 109s we have now.

I think we have the same problem (to a lesser extent) with the 190s. 190s looked like 109s do now, when they first came out. The outcry was so bad that they were "fixed" to increase forward view. They're better, but I still think they're not what they should be -- they're not like the p51 cockpits, which they should be (mind you, with thicker bars).

hubsonfire · « **Reply #41 on:** December 31, 2005, 11:48:02 AM »

I don't know how the field of view on this camera versus that of AH compare, but in trying to lineup the same shot in game in a G2, I find the rear bars (B pillar in automotive lingo, I guess) appear twice as wide in the game, and the forward view appears to be a great deal less. It looks as though the angles of the side panels are less in game, or the cockpit is narrower overall. Regardless, the feeling is claustrophobic for me, with more of a vertical view than a forward view. The apparent size of the cockpit may be due more to the scaling of the IP than the actual dimensions, but the bar structure seems insanely large.
I didn't feel that much in the flight model changed, if anything, but the lack of forward view absolutely ruined me on the LW planes. As an interesting exercise in determining scale, compare the pictures with the 109 cockpits in game, and look at the locations of switchgear and instruments. Something is definitely out of scale (or several somethings). I don't claim to be an expert in anything regarding aircraft, but in looking at the real thing, it's difficult to reconcile what we have in game, with what I see in front of me now.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #42 on:** December 31, 2005, 12:04:06 PM »

If you move your head position back in the LW rides the bracing is less an issue. But then the gunsight is useless. The Russian rides have a similar problem in that you need to move the head position so far forward to get a useful gunsight that the gauges are pretty much off-screen and you really lose a sense of perspective. So I think it may be a combination of the head position and the gunsight size/position which is impacting this.

I cruised over to one of the IL2 fansites today to see screenshots of how they handled the cockpit framing. Not that I consider them any kind of reference, I just wanted to see the design choices they made. The Spit had really heavy framing - worse than our 109, in my opinion. Another thing I also noticed was a much better feel for looking "down" the front of the plane. There was a sense of depth which, maybe artificial, did seem more "lifelike."

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #43 on:** December 31, 2005, 12:41:33 PM »

Bah. had taken a screenshot and pointed out specifics but I cant get it uploaded right

AKFokerFoder+ · « **Reply #44 on:** December 31, 2005, 01:28:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK

I THINK I know what your referring to.

In any event.
in this case it might because the evidence that the forward view is incorrect is pretty concrete.

The 190's were fixed with less evidence.

You think it will be changed because of concrete evidence?

You mean just like the flaps on the 109s were changed, based on concrete evidence.