109 view

[Professor Fate]

It's that time again   could the priority to fix the 109 front view be bumped up some I know pilot visibility was bad in these craft but the ones in AH are even more so IMO.
   
   

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

   
I AM PROFESSOR FATE!

[This message has been edited by Professor Fate (edited 05-31-2001).]

[hazed-]

i see what you mean..those struts on front screen are almost 3 times as thick!  

------------------
Hazed
9./JG54

[J_A_B]

The top photo isn't taken from the perspective of a guy actually sitting in the cockpit; it is raised signifigantly.

J_A_B

[Professor Fate]

yes I understand the photo is at a different angle but the front struts do not converge towards the nose of the craft as does the one in AH nor do they appear as wide.  It has been brought to their attention in the past by 'NathBDP' they said it wasn't a high priority, I was just asking if it could be    



[This message has been edited by Professor Fate (edited 05-31-2001).]

[StSanta]

The problem isn't the modelling, but the way 3d objects are represented on a 2d surface.

Unfortunately, planes like the 109s and 190s suffer because things get disproprortionately large. take to overhead rail of the 190, or the bars on the 109.

Thew following pic shows that it's modelled correctly in the 3d model.

 

Unfortunately, once you do some math to get the 3d stuff done, it ends up looking a wee bit weird.



------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"

[juzz]

1. The cockpit shown is without armourglass and appears to be the rounded top canopy type, from an E-3 or earlier model. The one shown from AH is the F-4, which had armoured front glass requiring thicker frames.

2. The FOV/perspective in the AH view makes the convergence of the front frames look much worse than it actually is. Try this: Zoom(use z view which changes FOV) in as far as possible, then switch to the F3 view and look at the cockpit from directly above. The actual convergence of the front frames is small(and it appears to be assymetric?).

[Fishu]

I agree, too thick in the game.
Perspective isn't excuse here, when looking at the cockpit.

[Westy MOL]

 The example pic in the first post is completely irrelevant as it's not a real combat ME-109.  Look at this Italian pilot in a ME-109-G6. This pic as well as others easily shows the 109 has the smallest, cramped cockpit of just about any WWII fighter.

 IMO there is TOO much visibility in the AH 109's.

 

  -Westy

[GRUNHERZ]

The first picture in this thread is a real combat 109. It is clearly a 109E3, and Westy 109E3 saw a lot of combat.

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by Westy MOL:
 IMO there is TOO much visibility in the AH 109's.

...and almost blind F4u and F6F can see very well behind.
Not to talk about those neckless pilots that can see right behind, while being strapped on the seat.

[Westy MOL]

 Fishu, you're are wrong. Strapped into a seat is not the same as being nailed to a seat back, torso and neck, with no mobility.

 The USAAF pilots "seat belt was a wide webbed belt with a latch that would enclose the ends of the shoulder harness (two web straps).  The seat belt was cinched up tight and sometimes might have to be tightened during the flight.  The shoulder harness was the inertial type so that the pilot was free to lean forward.  There was plenty of room for shoulder, neck and head turning to look behind, at least as far as the aircraft construction would allow.."

 Maybe the LW should have tried something similar? It would appear the LW made the 109 pilots strap in as if they were being launched on a V-2 rocket. If so too bad for the LW modelled views. The US planes did nto have any such restriction other than physical view blockage.

 Where the people get this totally eronious idea that a WWII fighter pilot could NOT look behind by moving his upper torso, shoulders, neck and eyes??

 Grunherz, I was under the impression that the first picture had no armoured glass and was not a regular production or combat version. Perhaps when AH has an E3 that picture could be used?

 -Westy

[This message has been edited by Westy MOL (edited 06-01-2001).]

[Professor Fate]

 I thought the front view of a 109 should be some what wider than it is.  Right now the front struts (or whatever ya call'em) appear to narrow or converge near the nose of the craft versus the parallel appearance of any model 109 I've ever seen, real or simulated.  That was the view I was primarily concerned about, now if that means even less visibilty elsewhere then so be it as long as it's 'historical' I could live with it.  But of course if this is as close as HTC can get then I can live with that too  

[Westy MOL]

"...as long as it's 'historical' I could live with it"

 I agree and I also think that is what most of us want with all the planes.  IMO, several aircraft really need the limits of thier views checked out. However a lack of rear view mirrors for those that had them means I'm not going to be soliciting HTC for anything to get changed ....yet.

 -Westy

[bolillo_loco]

proffesor_fate=trojan_wabbit?

[Jekyll]

 

Originally posted by Westy MOL:

 Where the people get this totally eronious idea that a WWII fighter pilot could NOT look behind by moving his upper torso, shoulders, neck and eyes??

  -Westy

[This message has been edited by Westy MOL (edited 06-01-2001).]

Probably from the same place that led them to believe that a real WW2 pilot could not lean forward over his dash and crank his neck around through 180 degrees to check his high 6 while pulling 7g's in a break turn  

Ya gotta admit Westy, the allowances made in the AH view system are far from what was really available to pilots in WW2.