Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong

[Waffle]

 

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by BlauK
Originally posted by Waffle BAS

For Blauks and Drediocks drawings - check this out:
Another thing is getting fooled by the glass distortion of thickness...

the old "put a pencil in a clear glass filled water...and it looks like its broken /shifted by the water"



THAT EXACTLY IS THE POINT!!!!!

Fooled? It is not about fooling anyone. That is like saying, dont get fooled by people wearing eye-glasses... they cannot really see well with those optically refracting devices.
It IS what people see in real life from inside of the plane. The refraction is there and works for them to see more in their front view!!!

You are also showing the windshield frames from outside from an angle where they appear the widest. That is like showing the wings from above and trying to say that they would appear so thick from the front.

Agreeing with Blau.

I might add that no one mentioned what they looked like from the outside, except Waffle. No one argued that the braces have incorrect horizontal depth (as is illustrated in his last image, comparing the horizontal dimensions as viewed from the exterior,  to the vertical dimensions Dred highlighted, as viewed from the interior). Since the horizontal depth doesn't appear in AH, I think that's a more a case of apples and oranges. I'd love to see a picture that is taken from exactly the same position as the default head position in AH, to see which differences are due to the position/angle of the camera.

You can talk to us about refraction, or tricks of light through glass, but the fact remains that what we have, doesn't look all that much like the real thing. If the refraction of the front windscreen added visibility, render that in game. However, I have trouble believing that refraction alone would increase the forward view by several inches on each side. The glass would refract light coming in at an angle, but not those rays striking it at 90 degrees. Looking in from the side, or out the right side, for instance, with your face up against the left side of the windscreen, you'd see, I imagine, significant refraction. I just don't believe (and I'm not saying I'm entirely correct) that you'd have that much of an effect from looking nearly straight on at a flat panel of glass/perspex/polycarbonate, etc.

[BlauK]

Originally posted by Waffle BAS
so now would be the question:

If it can shift the rail (which it's mounted to) with what percieves to be about 1-2 inches....how much should it shift objects further out when through from an edge area?

Waffle,
was this about the refraction issue? If so, could you clarify, I did not follow the question  (not my mother tongue )

[BlauK]

Yup, hubs


I thing my 1-sided polygon approach would address that head leaning to side issue. The bottom of that 4-cornered frame would kind of eat away the additional view when leaning to side (from that particular side).

Is that drawing obscure, do you people get the idea or should I draw it better?

[Waffle]

This is good Saturday afternoon fun....

Who's getting liquored up tonight!


Blauk - I was refering to the edges where the light / view is shifted due to the thick glass.

How useful would the area be (the edges)? How much distortion would be there? I mean - it can't be viewable area, as there is no way you could see through the rail.

as far as the 1-sided poly - that would give more viewing area.
Maybe they could do something to the texture to simulate the refraction.

[hubsonfire]

I'm trying frantically to get all of my non-incindiary posting done before I lose the ability to speak and type in English.

No, I don't think we should texture the glass. The 109 isn't the only plane that has some refractory effects in the canopy. Surely everyone worked for protective canopies that afforded decent visibility and protection. I still think that something, in perspective or the attempt to render it, is incorrect. There was a picture of a Spitfire's cockpit, and it's framework looked incredibly massive compared to ours. The 51 cockpits look to be the size of my last studio apartment, except with a far better view. I know we'll never have 100% historical accuracy, since this is a game, and I don't think giving any aircraft in it a decent field of view is a horrible thing.

Even trying to imagine huge amounts of refraction, and obscured lateral views (even though I don't think we can shift the head position around in such a way as to allow that), I still can't reconcile the real life shot, and the in-game shot. Something is wrong, I just can't say precisely what. I think you have to admit, no matter how you feel on the subject, that the 2 sets of images are different, and until we've all crawled into that little monster, we're probably going to have a hard time agreeing on what the cause of the apparent differences is.

Anyhow, I'm going to get a bottle in front of me, before I have to get a frontal lobotomy.

Happy New Years, dweebs!

[AKFokerFoder+]

Originally posted by Urchin
Ugh, nevermind... that pic doesnt have the intake either.  Even so, is the first pic of the same plane as the other two pics in the OP's pics?

If you look at Waffle's 3rd pic at the bottom of the first page (White 2), you can see a shot of the intake.  It is below the MG bump on the left hand side.  None of the pic's that Dred posted show it, so if all three of those are from the same plane, that would explain why you can't see it in his RL posted pic.

Yep it's the same plane, look at the background stuff on the wall, and the wing of the plane with the allied bullseye on it. Three different shots same plane.  The last picture in the original post of Drediocks show the intake on it. Like I say, we have urban legends in the flight sim world. Much of what we accept as "realistic" does not always stand up to serious investigation

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by Waffle BAS
This is good Saturday afternoon fun....

Who's getting liquored up tonight!


Blauk - I was refering to the edges where the light / view is shifted due to the thick glass.

...  

Indeed ... got my bottle of "Jewel of Russia" in the freezer getting ready for a proper blitzing tonight.


Anyway ... I think a general re-evaluation of the cockpit model is deserved. Look at these two pictures:

AH Spit

Real Spit

Granted that in the "Real Spit" picture you don't have the right angle, but consider a few things:

1) Notice how close the pilot's head (you can see the goggles and helmet placed on the headrest) would be relative to the windscreen. In AH, you appear to be miles away.

2) Notice how the gunsight is basically on top of the stick - in AH it appears more like the gunsight is well forward of the stick.

3) Notice now much of the frontal glass plate is taken up by the gunsight's reflector. Compare to what we have in AH.

4) Look at the three panels that make up the front faces of the Spit cockpit, each is roughly the same area (not the same shape, but just look at the dimensions). Now in AH look how the side panels are distorted to give so much extra side view.

5) Just size up the cockpit volume in the real photo. Compare to how spacious it appears in AH.


My point here isn't that the Spit's cockpit is too good or the LW is too bad. Rather, lets try to get some kind of benchmark or rule set for what *should* be on the screen. I feel that these fighters should all look pretty cramped as seen from the driver's seat. It's probably not a popular view, but I'd be happier if all the planes had the kinds of visbility issues the 109 and 190 have - I think that'd be more realistic. But that's me.

I think there a few things going on here. One is that the placement and construction of the cockpit needs to be looked at, because some things just don't seem placed right. Next is the head position and gunsight position needs to be looked at - AH just doesn't look like the photos in this regard; and in some cases its really porked.

Lastly I wonder just what the viewing transformation is for viewing from the front view. While a 50mm lens does represent what the human eye takes in, as I recall an 85mm lens actually reflects what the human eye focuses on (which is why when you take pictures with a regular camera the thing you took a picture of ends up "smaller" than you thought it would). Maybe if the viewing angle were narrower for the front view and grew wider as you pivoted (since in other views you're scanning instead of focusing, right?).

[Krusty]

Slight delay in replying: Waffle, I wasn't comparing the size or spaciousness of the P51 vs the 109, but rather the camera angles used to portray it.

Remember when the Ki84 first came out? It had as wide a view as our current p51. I LOVED it because I could see everything anywhere. However some folks didn't like it so the angle was narrowed down to current view it has now.

[BlauK]

Originally posted by Waffle BAS
This is good Saturday afternoon fun....

Who's getting liquored up tonight!


Blauk - I was refering to the edges where the light / view is shifted due to the thick glass.

How useful would the area be (the edges)? How much distortion would be there? I mean - it can't be viewable area, as there is no way you could see through the rail.

as far as the 1-sided poly - that would give more viewing area.

-------------

It is almost 1 hour past the new year here just about finished with the last beer. So this is a message from the future... from year 2006 to year 2005

Waffle,
the slight addition on the viewing area would not be that dramatic, since it would stay the same regardless of distance to target. Just look at the pic below and compare the green and red lines. Even a mile away my suggestion would just show an inc more of the target, so the difference becomes irrelevant.

The real difference is between the curretn view and the real refracted view. Since they are in slightly different angle, the lacking view area gets bigger the  further the target is. Possibly a mile away the difference could be a whole plane's width

This drawing below is not in any propotion, it just presents the idea!!!

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Urchin
Dred, comparing your two screenshots.  

A.  It does look like the uprights are to close to eachother.  In the RL cockpit, they are just outside of the corners of the main gauge area, in the game cockpit they are inside the corners.  Actually, to explain it different, IRL, the inside edges of the uprights line up with the edge of the main gauge area, and in game the outside edges of the uprights are to the inside of that line (not even lined up).

 They dont just look that way. They are;)

B.  Are you sure you have the same perspective as in the RL shot?  It seems to me that your perspective may be higher, which means that the bottom curve of the front windshield doesn't blank out the right MG bump.  It is hard for me to compare the two though, since the IRL cockpit does not have a gunsight mounted.
I tried different perspectives. That was the best overall perspective match wise I was able to get.
In order for the bottom curve to blank out the MG hub that pic would have had to have been taken near the bottom of the seat where your butt sits in the game which the RL picture obviously wasnt

C.  As far as the width goes, you've got two different widths.  Lets say forward width (oriented along the nose-tail axis), and side width (wingtip to wintip axis).  In the in game shot, it is tough to tell them apart (at least for me.  The rear uprights appear to be to thick, but that may be an illusion because of where the camera position is.  Forward width on the back uprights actually appears to be to skinny, unless I'm not looking at the right line.

Im talking overall width in relation to the amount of view they block I'd agree with you that the forward width looks to skinny. But the backside looks to me to be much too thick.
Overall in balance I'd say the line drawn in corner of the game art should be moved back a hair and overall the support needs to be thinned a tad as its obvious these supports didnt obstruct the view nearly as much as they do in game

D.  I really don't have that much truble reading the gauges in game.  
Maybe its the textures. I cant run Hi res or my machine slows to a crawl in large fights even worse then it does now.
Still. that screenshot shows exactly how those guages look to me in the game.
I can read em. but just barely. And while I can read the dial I cant read at all if Im 0K, 10K or 20K without zooming in.
All I'd like to see is to see the areas that are gray to be made white. I doubt they were gray IRL. In fact that pic proves they werent.
I'd just like these 44 year old eyes to be able to read the guages without having to change  eyeglasses LOL

E.  I think the forward uprights are suffering from the same thing the back uprights are, in that it is tough to tell what is "forwards" width, and what is "sideways" width.  I *think* the forward width may be to thick, by looking at the right upright compared to the left upright.  

Either they are too thick or they are angled wrong. Like if you look at a length of 2X4 standing on end. if you look at it from one angle it will be thicker  and if you look at it from the 2" side only it will look thinner
Looks like if the pick was centered more you would be looking more at the 2" side which would make sense as that would be how the thick glass was fitted in. Its depth (the 4" side )should be barely perceivable from the pilots seat.
Without everyone running out and getting a 2x4 you can see what I mean by taking your hands and holding them  flat with your thunbs facing you and your pinkies facing away.
The depth of your fingers is barely perceivable and in no way blocks your view much more then the thickness of your  hand from palmside to knuckleside. certainly the width of your hand isnt much of an issue.
Same thing with those forward uprights. Im not disputing their overall size. as not beeing accurrate to the RL dementions But rather their perspective.
Which means they should appear thinner

G.  That is the intake, it may be missing on the RL picture, I'm not certain.
CC noticed that in some of the other pics somone else posted

H.  I think your pic is coming from a different perspective than the RL pic, which makes it look as if the cockpit is to smushed, up and down.  

Overall, I think your picture may be slightly behind and above the RL picture.  If you look at the brace on the rear upright, in the RL pic, that is all you can see in the upper right.  In youyr pic, you can see a significant slice of the upright itself.  I think the perspective in game needs to be moved forward some.  If you compare the ammo count bars (i didnt even know 109s had those!) in the RL pic, they are not blanked at all by the bottom lip of the cockpit, they are in a shadow that is being cast by it.  In your pic, the top of the bars are being cut off by the lip, which leads me to believe that the viewpoint is higher than in the RL pic.

Again. its the closest overall perspective I was able to get that most closely matched the RL pic. Any lower. or higher, or more off to either side and was completely out of whack.
Trust me. I spent over 10 minutes trying to duplicate it. Which tells me the artwork is probably more off then anything. But they (HTC) is trying to accomplish a 3d type view on a 2D canvas:)

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by BlauK
Originally posted by Waffle BAS

For Blauks and Drediocks drawings - check this out:
Another thing is getting fooled by the glass distortion of thickness...

the old "put a pencil in a clear glass filled water...and it looks like its broken /shifted by the water"



THAT EXACTLY IS THE POINT!!!!!

Fooled? It is not about fooling anyone. That is like saying, dont get fooled by people wearing eye-glasses... they cannot really see well with those optically refracting devices.
It IS what people see in real life from inside of the plane. The refraction is there and works for them to see more in their front view!!!

You are also showing the windshield frames from outside from an angle where they appear the widest. That is like showing the wings from above and trying to say that they would appear so thick from the front.

Exactly.. or near enough anyway

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Urchin
Yea waffle, I know it is... only problem is trying to scroll up and down to compare the modified RL pic to the ingame pic.

Easy way around this.
Open up a new browser window and set that one to the same site and go to where you want on the second window. Then you can just flip back and forth at will

[Waffle]

Blauk - there's still a problem with that diagram.

What's you're suggesting is still "looking through metal"

There is no physical way that there would be a way to see through that rail, unless the glass was protruding infront, like a periscope.  Even then you would get a distorted view.

The only way to get it "true" would be if the game had a second "viewpoint (similar to rearview mirrors in some games).  Then you could bring that viewport in some to where the glass starts, or where the difference lies in the refraction.

if that makes sense...lol

[BlauK]

Waffle,
the real life refraction is actually showing something "through the metal" since it goes makes theh sight go around the metal!!! Just follow the red view where the green starts and the follow the green.

The real life view is showing sky in the point where green and red meet! It is shifting the view slightly though, but like I said, the shift become irrelevant when moving further from the windshield, even to 100 yards away from it. What is 1 inch of 100 yds ...or of 1 mile?

Can you understand, that it does not really give any advantage to see an inch more of the target. The inch stays the same regardless of target distance.. it is an inch more of the target and it is not more angle in the same way as the current view is dramatically less viewing angle!!!

I am trying to say that "looking through the metal" is very close to the real situation. The current view is much much worse than in real compared to that possible slight advantage. Even that advantage could be cut away by leaving the widened view simply slightly more narrow (that above mentioned imagined "inch")