Fix the 109(s) cockpits.

[GRUNHERZ]

Hi

Mino slant the supports in that picture as much as they are slanted in the AH 109 and youll see they are pretty much the exact same height. The Ah 109 front view is correct in heigth but is incorrect in the width becuse of the exaggerated slant of the side supports.  

The reason it looks taller is because our brain is programmed to percieve shapes that come together in the distance as being farthr away or longer thats what  "linear perspective" is, thats why train tracks come togeter at very LONG distances. So when the bars angle so steeply it creates the impression that the distance between the top and bottom is greater than if the supports were upright and parallel. Making it appear as if the AH view was taller than RL, but when its actually correct in heigth.
Just look at Andy Bush's or SkViper's modifies screenshots and they look almost exactly the same as the b/w cockpit picure.
Because their side supports are much more upright and accurate.

thanks GRUNHERZ

[Toad]

Sat in the Cavanaugh Museum's 109 a few years back at Nellis.

Even with the canopy open, looking out the front was like looking through a peep hole.

 

[senna]

If you get this will it make you even more sneeky in that 109 Nath? I would agree with Nath in effect that the mental view of a 90 degree line is lost when rendered from a fixed point onto 2D plane of view. Take a book or a magazine and place it in front of your eyes (use a picture of favorite plane to kill if you like) and tilt it bottom forward. Notice that your mind knows it's still 90 degrees but also from a perspective, mathmatically on a 2D surface, it's now like the rendition in AH that hooligan stated.

-- senna

 

Originally posted by Nath-BDP:
Look at what GRUNHERZ posted, need I say more? Stop trying to spin this guys...

  The fact is the effect is wildly overdone in AH.

And I have noticed that the inside of cockpits is like the reverse of the outside... this is apparent in the p51 where the windscreen bars go out towards the wings from external view and in RL pics but from the cockpit they move towards engine.

[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 11-18-2000).]

[-lynx-]

I guess it's just plain pointless trying to expalin to some people why "objects in a rear view mirror appear closer than they are"...

------------------
lynx
13 Sqn RAF

[StSanta]

Lynx and senna:

check the outside pics. Compare to AH. Real life cameras also catch this thing called perspective.

But you will, if you're not totally biased, see the difference.

Nath *is* right, despite being a LW driver.

It happens, you know.

Much more frequently than the allierte schweinhunde think.



------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}

[fats]

Anyone with a 3D program? Render 2 simple pics, one with say 35mm camera settings and the other matching AH's 90deg FOV of an simple rectangle representing the Bf 109's windshield at apporpriate distance. Render them at the same resolution as the previous screenshots were. I'd do it my self but I don't own any 3D software at the moment...

// fats

[Baddawg]

Mein gott! mien 109 is kaput!
Und mien underwaren is upen mien cracken !
Off with der Superflyen's headen.!

[Nath-BDP]

punt... "after 1.05..."

[Frosty1]

The interior and exterior models for the 109 seem to be different. When you see it from the outside at a distance the cockpit isn't rendered. The cockpit is wrong.

------------------
===>Frosty
====>Exposure2k.com
=====>Frosty@exposure2k.com

[Tac]

Jigster, that is awesome terrain man!

Dont care less about the 109, but what I see in the RL pics vs AH pics, I do think those bars should be straightened... perspective correction or not, it still hampers view and aiming a LOT.

If the RL pilots saw it straight, it should be straight in AH.

[J_A_B]

NATH, have you ever got to sit inside a Bf-109G-10 cockpit?

I have.    

Believe me, a realistic cockpit is the LAST thing you want.  

The cockpit is pathetically small, not much wider than my head.  When the guy closed the lid, I felt like I was being locked into a cage.  I literally COULD NOT turn around all the way to see behind me.   I could not raise my head more than an inch; visibility over the nose is totally non-existant.  I was actually against the canpoy when I tried to sit up any.  It's that small.

The cockpit is so narrow it was difficult to get into--and this plane didn't even have a working (centered) control stick getting in my way.  I could not turn around to look behind me; looking over my shoulder for a slightly aft view was even a strain.

I cannot imagine any plane that would have benefitted more from having a rearview mirror.  However, I have yet to see a 109 with a mirror modeled in a game.

I could only imagine how much worse it would be if I had a bulky flightsuit and a helmet on.  It's amazing that people could fly these in combat at all.  Side visibility was the only direction I could see fairly well.  That and above me.  

Sitting in there I could understand why so many 109's were wrecked landing.....landing that plane would be guesswork at best.  It is NOT something I would want to go to war in.

If you want a realistic 109 cockpit, then the ability to raise your head should be disabled, as should the "6" view.  As well as severly limiting the head movement allowed.  Seriously.


J_A_B

[Nath-BDP]

All planes have unrestricted head movement jab.

[Jigster]

JAB keep in mind that during WWII the average man in his early 20's was 5'4" and hair over 150 pounds if wartime rations allowed.

It is believed that the generation that grew up during the great depression and then dealing with WWII had stunted growth so to speak due to widespread malnutrition.

One only needs to look at US WWII vehicles like the Jeep or DPW's to see how these vehicles were contoured around this body size.

Btw Tac that's one of Nuttz's terrains...I can demo a few of them sometime for ya but Nuttz has stopped messing indefinately with the TE due to other commitments

- Bess

[GRUNHERZ]

Bud Anderson weighed only bout 147lbs according to his book.

[Effdub]

haven't got the reference at hand, but I recall one german pilot saying "between the wars we forgot to build planes with a good 6 o'clock view". Or something like that....

I'll go along with JAB that a pilot, strapped into his cockpit never had the field of view AH is offering us.

I'd really love a more realistic view system because to me its part of a planes "performance features". We all want the planes to "feel right" as far as speed, turn rate etc goes. These have a great affect on how you have to fight (b&z vs T&b...) but visibility also plays a big role in how one "would" have to fight... The spitfires 6 o'clock view shoulden't be as good as it is now - I fly mostly spits but still I'd welcome the "handicap"  

I know alot of ppl here will not agree... so it's rather pointless I guess  

After all, when I flew EAW I was "shocked" about the 6 o'clock view... Nothing obscured your view, no seat armor, no fuselage, no nothing...
What really shocked me though was that it didn't bother any of the guys flying the game...

...I wonder how many would "still" fly the C-Hog when they'd be restricted to a more realistic view... and how many would then start flying P-51's because of a view bonus...

That's what makes planes like the 190 and P-51 really special... but as it is now ya can fly any plane and still get similar 6 o'clock views.

Effdub