Author Topic: 109 field of view head movement box... (Read 891 times)

Citabria · « **on:** April 29, 2001, 11:08:00 PM »

Natedog the 109 head movement box is overgenerous concerning side view limits. (eyeball removed from skull and placed against side canopy glass.

it should be similar to the p51b in that department.

upwards field of view limit is quite realistic though.
do any luftwaffe disagree?
it is an observation in the spirit of historical realism.

Zigrat · « **Reply #1 on:** April 30, 2001, 01:52:00 AM »

i agree 109 field of view is generous

but i also believe the same of the f4u

HABICHT · « **Reply #2 on:** April 30, 2001, 08:07:00 AM »

let's say cit's arguments in an other way.
the 3d cockpits we have, are nice. the
views, how they can be safed, are absolutely
unrealistic. not only in the 109, in EVERY plane of AH.
you ask why?..do following (if able to).
go to you next local airfield and sit into an warbird or even an glider. then FASTEN the seatbelts like EVERY acrobatic pilot in the world is doing it every time.
if you did it right, you body is not able to move anymore. then try to look around, only with head movements. you will see, nearly NO
rear view possible. no chance to get your eyes on the canopy an look back. ok, you are saying "well, then i don't fasten my seatbelts so strong". what do you think is your body doing in a 5+ or 1.5- G manouver, only with less fastened seatbelts?...your body will shake around in the cockpit, you might even hurt yourself or knock yourself out.
i think every RL pilot (from fighter to glider) will agree with me.
for an realistic simulation, pls RESTRICT the VIEW to an REALISTIC view.

BTW: this is discussed at BlueByte forum on the IL2 strumovik site.

wastel aka habicht

Citabria · « **Reply #3 on:** April 30, 2001, 08:17:00 AM »

your reading into it to deep habicht

I'm stating that for the 109 pilot to have the side rear views we have in AH he would have to remove his eyes from his skull and place them on the side of the canopy.

Kirin · « **Reply #4 on:** April 30, 2001, 08:23:00 AM »

Hehe, Cit - the 4 o'clock position of my coolie-hat seizes duty from time to time anyway - so enema approach me from my low, level 4 and I won't spot you...

Seriously, I agree with Habicht 100%! AH pilots necks are much too flexible taking in account you have fastened your seatbelt tight. And that u want for sure in a dogfight!!!

That brings me to another issue: I wish HTC would model B17 gunners falling from their plane when their pilot pulls some 6+g stunt manouvers or at least knocking them unconcious...

Eagler · « **Reply #5 on:** April 30, 2001, 08:26:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Citabria:
your reading into it to deep habicht

I'm stating that for the 109 pilot to have the side rear views we have in AH he would have to remove his eyes from his skull and place them on the side of the canopy.

and your point?

Eagler

[This message has been edited by Eagler (edited 04-30-2001).]

Jekyll · « **Reply #6 on:** April 30, 2001, 08:44:00 AM »

Agreed Cit, but of course the weird view adjustments apply to all planes in AH. Just imagine if we ever do away with the Linda Blair '6' view.

Try test-flying in a sim where there is no 6 view at all. No 'Back/up' view either

Pucker time guys... definitely pucker time. No wonder it's estimated that 90% of combat kills in WW2 occurred when the victim never even knew he was under attack.

[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 04-30-2001).]

HABICHT · « **Reply #7 on:** April 30, 2001, 09:24:00 AM »

citabria, i know the 109 views well. but it's in every other plane like in the 109.

for jekyll.

in WB, lots of kills are made so. surprise attack.

wastel

Graywolf · « **Reply #8 on:** April 30, 2001, 09:49:00 AM »

On the F6F it is possible to move your head high enough that the 'eyeball' in level with the top of the canopy, must be draughty in there with that head shaped ahol ein the roof =)

If you limit your head positions to realistic ones (as I always do) the 6 o'clock view is considerably worse.

I mailed this to the bug forum as soon as it came out.

------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>

danish · « **Reply #9 on:** April 30, 2001, 01:02:00 PM »

On the Tight Belts Issue: its a fact that Julius Meimberg jg2/jg53 only used the "abdominal belt" (=lower belt.Sorry dont know the correct word) in the 109.This for getting the optimal views.

The long list of pilots getting serious head injures when doing otherwise perfect belly ditches suggests that that practice was common - or at least flying with loose shoulder belts.(could start digging for exampels, hope to get trusted on this one.. :=)Such injuries should not be possible if thightly strapped up.

Sorry if I have repeated arguments allready stated before.

This has of course nothing to do with Cit's argument.He is most likely right, only that counts for all planes.Had the pleasure of standing "hands on" a Spit XI at Gardermoen this friday (not sitting in Im afraid.heh).Not possible to see but a glimps at your vertical stabs.Unless you rolled the canopy back :=)

danish

AG Sachsenberg · « **Reply #10 on:** April 30, 2001, 01:23:00 PM »

Danish you are right quite a few LW pilots suffered head injuries on crash landings. But doesn't it make sense they might have adjusted the belts prior to ditching?

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

[This message has been edited by AG Sachsenberg (edited 04-30-2001).]

danish · « **Reply #11 on:** April 30, 2001, 01:42:00 PM »

Things happend fast in combat.You chose to use slack belts (or no shoulder belts at all..) to better your combat possibilities, hoping you have the time or vits to tighten them if needed.

danish

Citabria · « **Reply #12 on:** April 30, 2001, 01:45:00 PM »

lol

see how close you can get to the canopy side bracing in the n1k2

or any other plane.

the rest are plausibly realistic
the 109s are not.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #13 on:** April 30, 2001, 05:02:00 PM »

Citabria, the effect you describe is present in most of the planes, but in 109 it has a second effect, once you place your eyeball in these possitions, icons dissapear (at least in my AH). So this is, in fact, a handicap.

[This message has been edited by MANDOBLE (edited 05-01-2001).]

Daff · « **Reply #14 on:** April 30, 2001, 06:47:00 PM »

Most head-injuries cames from smashing the head into the gunsight..you would need very tight shoulderstraps to avoid that.
I know the US had 5 point harnesses (or at least later changed to it), but the RAF had the 4-point Sutton harness, where you *need* to have the shoulder straps tight to be safely strapped in at all. (And if you dont believe that, I'll happily take you flying inverted in a Tiger Moth without *you* strapping in tight).
AH got the right idea with headmovement..unfortunatly it's way (way!) too excagerated. Even with only the lapbelt strapped tight, it's still limited how much you can move around, *especially* when you got G's pinning you down to the seat.
(I can move my head fairly freely at least up to 5.5 G's, though).

Daff

------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
www.56thfightergroup.org
This is Yardstick, follow me"