Author Topic: Like the 190s were 109 cockpit views are wrong (Read 4776 times)

Waffle · « **Reply #75 on:** December 31, 2005, 05:32:46 PM »

to much refraction and not enough drinking.

It would be the same view that is seen now....only inset a few inches closer. and maybe a slight stretching magnification of image.

BlauK · « **Reply #76 on:** December 31, 2005, 05:39:04 PM »

No magnification. The glass is straight!

The main difference is in the viewing angle... in the horizontal width of the front glass!

Just think about it. You can hide an airplane or even many of them in that missing angle. But there is no way you could hide an airplane behing 1 inch.. is there?

The issue is about the principle of angle and shifting/refracting/mirroring the widest angle just a bit.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #77 on:** December 31, 2005, 05:42:20 PM »

I still think its a problem with the perspective more then anything and the angles they were drawn in at.

Like I said before if your looking at a @x4 standing on end and your looking at the 2" side. Then the 4" side doesnt look like 4" at all but quite thinner. The more you twist or turn the 4" side to face you the larger it appears untill your not seeing mostly the 2"side and some of the 4" side but all of the 4" side and all of the 2" side which means you now have 6"s blocking your view and now 2 or 4.

THAT is where I thinkthe problem lies we're getting the full 6"s of bloackage as opposed to the 2" and a sliver of the 4" side which is probably what it should be

If you look again at the RL interior pick you can see the depth (thickness) of the glass in the right upright. But you only see that because the pic was taken slightly to the left. where as because the camera was right behind the left upright you cant see that thickness at all.

Centered you would probably see only a very small sliver of that thickness unless you had your head all the way forward.

What I beleive we see in the game and which is incorect is the full thickness of the glass at the same time as opposed to a little sliver on each side which is how it should be in otherwards the thickness of the glass fropm the pilots seat should be far less noticable and almost to the point of negligable

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #78 on:** December 31, 2005, 05:49:18 PM »

on another note. couple things which should be beyond dispute.

1- As is clearly shown in (A) in my screenshot The forward uprights are in the wrong place and too close together and should be mounted at the outer corners of the center instument panels

2- the machine gun hubs are too bulbous and too much in the way view wise.
as well as too much of the nose itself is in view and thus blocks view.
And to note in the pics below the RL pick was taken at a higher view from the in game pick (looks like someone had the same problem I did)
no matter from the higher angled pic the nose should be more prominent then in the lower angled pick, yet the reverse is true here

BlauK · « **Reply #79 on:** December 31, 2005, 05:54:55 PM »

I think I agree with 2) ... but maybe it also depend on the pilot-gunsight line how much of the bulges is shown. How is the gunsight line? Is it correct? Also was it really possible to see both of the bulges in the different side windows at the same time (like in that AH screenshot)?

Just one mor ething about this front glass refraction:
It is more imporrtant in planes which have/had a thick glass and thick frames because the refraction works with proprtions of the frames!!!! If teh frames are alreday narrow, the 1/3 difference would not be as big as 1/3 in wider frames (like e.g. in 109) for the viewing angle!

Now I will hit the bunk

..01:54
Enjoy your New Year celebrations

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #80 on:** December 31, 2005, 06:03:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BlauK
I think I agree with 2) ... but maybe it also depend on the pilot-gunsight line how much of the bulges is shown. How is the gunsight line? Is it correct? Also was it really possible to see both of the bulges in the different side windows at the same time (like in that AH screenshot)?

Just one mor ething about this front glass refraction:
It is more imporrtant in planes which have/had a thick glass and thick frames because the refraction works with proprtions of the frames!!!! If teh frames are alreday narrow, the 1/3 difference would not be as big as 1/3 in wider frames (like e.g. in 109) for the viewing angle!

Now I will hit the bunk ..01:54
Enjoy your New Year celebrations

LOL Dont see how you couldnt agree with 1 also

Look for example at the left uprights in the two side by side pics. It should be to the left of the compass and well into the downward slope of the gun hub instead of up near the top

Same thing holds true for the right upright.
Each is off by several inches

AKFokerFoder+ · « **Reply #81 on:** December 31, 2005, 06:13:18 PM »

My money is that the views won't get changed any more than the flaps will get changed.

Waffle · « **Reply #82 on:** December 31, 2005, 06:21:49 PM »

Blauk -

The viewing angle from the front window will not change due to the bending of the light as it passes through the glass. Why? The metal canopy frame and it's construction.. It will not let in anymore light to bend to the pilots eyepoint.

Thats why when you look at the side rails from the interior - it looks thinner than it actually is. Because it is offsetting the light.

Waffle · « **Reply #83 on:** December 31, 2005, 06:26:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
LOL Dont see how you couldnt agree with 1 also

Look for example at the left uprights in the two side by side pics. It should be to the left of the compass and well into the downward slope of the gun hub instead of up near the top

Same thing holds true for the right upright.
Each is off by several inches

So.....you're saying the instrument panel is correct?

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #84 on:** December 31, 2005, 06:42:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Waffle BAS
So.....you're saying the instrument panel is correct?

LMAO. No. but it is certainly much more correct then those uprights;)

GunnerCAF · « **Reply #85 on:** December 31, 2005, 09:35:49 PM »

Blauk is right. You will have an apparent view that is larger then the opening.

You will have a slight distortion from looking straight forward to the edge. The glass is also tilted back, so you will also get refraction and distortion in the other direction also. Trying to compare things seen through the thick glass, like the humps on the cowl, may not be the most accurate way to prove the opening is no right. Maybe some actual measurements will be the only way to prove this.

Happy New Year All!

Gunner

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #86 on:** December 31, 2005, 11:44:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GunnerCAF
Blauk is right. You will have an apparent view that is larger then the opening.

You will have a slight distortion from looking straight forward to the edge. The glass is also tilted back, so you will also get refraction and distortion in the other direction also. Trying to compare things seen through the thick glass, like the humps on the cowl, may not be the most accurate way to prove the opening is no right. Maybe some actual measurements will be the only way to prove this.

Happy New Year All!

Gunner

Measurements or no measurments doesnt change the fact that visually those humps are not as pronounced from inside the aircraft.

also simply look at the position of the uprights in relation to both the center instrument panel and as well as those humps.

In both cases the uprights are too much in the center and should be spread out more to the right and left

But even looking at the other pictures from the outside those gun mounts are not as big vertically as they are being shown in the game where it looks like you have couple of watermelons on top there LOL

BlauK · « **Reply #87 on:** January 01, 2006, 04:07:24 AM »

Originally posted by Waffle BAS
The viewing angle from the front window will not change due to the bending of the light as it passes through the glass. Why? The metal canopy frame and it's construction.. It will not let in anymore light to bend to the pilots eyepoint.
---

Yes, the angle of the view line does not change in the refraction. That is why the more visible wider angle also provides more view from outside of the glass than the current ah view. Look at 3) in the pic below. The red angle is larger than black angle! The red line is showing what is visible in the end of the green line which is MORE than what is visible at the end of the black line.

The refraction only occurs when the glass is met in an angle. When the angle gets smaller, the shift of teh view line also gets smaller. Look at 2). And if there is no angle at all, like in 1), there is no refraction.

The point is that the additional view area between the black and green line area gets wider and wider when the target is further. Also the viewing angle from the eye to the end of the green line actually GROWS (!!!) compared to the angle of the black line when getting further away.

Because green and red lines are parallel, the green line provides practically the same viewing angle with the red line in the distance! It only blocks a thin slice of the view at close distance.. the width of the shift. And when the target is also close, this shift is almost irrelevant.

I must conclude, that widening the view to the red line angle would be almost what can be seen in real life and, therefore, modeling this refraction phenomenon with the 1-sided polygon approach would not give any unfair benefits.

---
Thats why when you look at the side rails from the interior - it looks thinner than it actually is. Because it is offsetting the light.
---

It looks thinner and it also blocks the view less and it provides more outside view... which was to be proved, IMHO

The difference lies between the black and the green lines.

Waffle · « **Reply #88 on:** January 01, 2006, 04:35:19 AM »

ok - i'm suffieciently liquored up and about to pass out....

god forbid I had to check emals...lol

Your red line is correct....but where it is dotted....needs to move to where the green line meets the edge of the framing on the outer side.

It only gives the illusiion of more outside view. the feild of view is only what the canopy frame will give you. The illusion is that it's 2" closer to you when you see the light waves coming out of the glass.

more tommorow when sober!

BlauK · « **Reply #89 on:** January 01, 2006, 05:27:05 AM »

Yes Waffle,
that red dotted line is what "the suggestion" with that 1-sided polygon approach would show if it was used in AH. The combined red and green lines are what happens in real life. The red line (also the dotted line) is PARALLEL with teh green line, so the green line presents the moved dotted red line.. like yuo suggested. And the difference between black and green lines is NOT an illusion

It is real additional viewing area!!!

My point is that the dotted red line is practically very close to the green line and does not give any unfair advantage. On the contrary the black line (of current ah view) is very far away from the real refrected view... especially when target is further away.

The red dotted line would give advantage only when the target is very close, but it would not really matter since you could see the target already from both sides of the vertical frame.

It is much more important what happens when the target is further away... when th evertical frame can hide the target completely!

ps. I am sober alreday

It is early afternoon here.