Historical Gunsights

[BigKev03]

I think this has been brought up before but I am gonna bring it from a different point.  In this game as it is now all the GV sights are the same.  I would like to see the hisotircal sights for use if you want them.  By this I mean I can have custom sights loaded for planes why not for GV's.  Does anybody know if you can load custom sights for GV's??  I have never tried it or know if it can be done for gv's?  I think it would be nice to have the historical sights to use if you wish and if not go with the standard sights now.  Any input as to this topic is welcome.

Out,

BigKev

[Saxman]

IMO sights should be historical. Period.

[moot]

Luftwaffe sights sucked.

[Saxman]

Some of the Allied ones weren't so great either, but it's part of the aircraft.

[moot]

It's a dreadful prospect .. One of the first things I'd change if the planes were real.

[Ghosth]

Sorry but if I had to fly a plane with its historical gunsight then I'd probably jerk a wire or find a way to shut it off.

I like being able to choose my gunsight, its size, shape, color etc.

Tieing planes/GV's to their historical sight is going backward IMO.

Now I can see to a point doing it with Ground Vehicles.
Because some countrys had much better sights, and zoom than others.

But I much prefer a level playing field.

[Saxman]

So answer me this:

Why is it you expect an aircraft to perform in a manner consistent with its historical counterpart and we rag on the Wishlist/etc posts asking for ez-mode FM changes that would detract from this, but GOD FORBID that if you want to fly a plane you have to use its actual gunsight? The gunsight was as much a part of the aircraft--even if it IS a minor one--as its canopy framing and visibility, armament, speed, maneuverability, climb and spin characteristics, and pilots in the field never got the chance to pick and choose what sight their plane was equipped with. It SHOULD be part of flying a given ride.

Some aircraft I know the sight picture is ARTIFICIALLY bad and needs correction (the gunsight in the F4Us is half the size it's supposed to be. This IS an error within the model itself not a characteristic of the sight. From the default head position the bottom of the sight should come down to the top of the cowl. I've been asking for that to be fixed since the remodeled F4Us came out, and confirmed it by calculating target wingspans compared to the size of the rings on the historical sight--30ft wingspan should fill the inner ring of the Mk.8 sight at 200yds, instead it fills at 400). But that's a different matter.

[BnZs]

IMHO, the custom gunsight option provides a very nifty working experiment in how useless various bells and whistles outside of the basic pipper are in fixed reflector sight design.  The important equipment is all inside the pilot's skull!

[Anaxogoras]

Luftwaffe sights sucked.

Yes, they were very slow at upgrading to lead computing gunsights.  It's strange because some German companies had developed prototypes at the beginning of the war, but they were ignored.  Then, an American example was captured, the design was copied and improved upon, but only some late model 190s and 262s were equipped with them.

[Cthulhu]

Yes, they were very slow at upgrading to lead computing gunsights.  It's strange because some German companies had developed prototypes at the beginning of the war, but they were ignored.  Then, an American example was captured, the design was copied and improved upon, but only some late model 190s and 262s were equipped with them.

The EZ-42.

Heavy and huge, but very effective when it worked. (Here, in a 262)

[AWwrgwy]

OP said Tank gunsights.


http://barkmanscorner.t83.net/#/strichplatte/4527707620

But, continue with the general gun sight discussion.



wrongway

[Saxman]

He said:

I would like to see the hisotircal sights for use if you want them.

I said that ALL sights should be historical PERIOD. That still falls in line with the subject thread.

[moot]

So answer me this:

Why is it you expect an aircraft to perform in a manner consistent with its historical counterpart and we rag on the Wishlist/etc posts asking for ez-mode FM changes that would detract from this, but GOD FORBID that if you want to fly a plane you have to use its actual gunsight? The gunsight was as much a part of the aircraft--even if it IS a minor one--as its canopy framing and visibility, armament, speed, maneuverability, climb and spin characteristics, and pilots in the field never got the chance to pick and choose what sight their plane was equipped with. It SHOULD be part of flying a given ride.

Some aircraft I know the sight picture is ARTIFICIALLY bad and needs correction (the gunsight in the F4Us is half the size it's supposed to be. This IS an error within the model itself not a characteristic of the sight. From the default head position the bottom of the sight should come down to the top of the cowl. I've been asking for that to be fixed since the remodeled F4Us came out, and confirmed it by calculating target wingspans compared to the size of the rings on the historical sight--30ft wingspan should fill the inner ring of the Mk.8 sight at 200yds, instead it fills at 400). But that's a different matter.

Fine.  Make it part of the perk loadout system.  Is there some 1940s tech limitation that would have made custom gunsight patterns impossible?  I doubt they couldn't have done that, if they could soup-up everything else about the planes.

Yes, they were very slow at upgrading to lead computing gunsights.  It's strange because some German companies had developed prototypes at the beginning of the war, but they were ignored.  Then, an American example was captured, the design was copied and improved upon, but only some late model 190s and 262s were equipped with them.

I mean the gunsight pattern sucked.  Garbage.  The only thing I like about LW gunsight systems that I've "used" is optional tinted glass.

[Cthulhu]

OP said Tank gunsights.


http://barkmanscorner.t83.net/#/strichplatte/4527707620

But, continue with the general gun sight discussion.



wrongway

Doh!  moot's fault, he derailed me when he said Luftwaffe.

Fine.  Make it part of the perk loadout system.

That's a bit of a stretch isn't it? I mean in essence you're loading another nation's hardware. With that line of logic, why not 5" HVAR's on an IL-2, or maybe even a pair of Jumo 004's on a P-47's wing hardpoints? (That's a funny image) Rediculous, I know, bit it seems that once you open that door, one could justify almost anything if it's perked.

[moot]

Not like I see it.. What's the internals of those reflection gadgets look like?  Would it really be so unfeasible for a ground crew to customize those patterns to fit what the pilot draws on a napkin, using only those stock gunsight parts?  I just don't understand the issue here, I'm not refusing to listen.  I'm not saying that a LW plane should get a K-14 gyro..

But I do agree with tanks' optics being made to match their relative historical advantages/disadvantages.