109 view

[Lephturn]

And you gotta admit....

A flat 2D screen that's 17" wide and contains a view that is a fraction of the area of vision a real pilot would have.  And that's before you take into consideration things like peripheral vision.

Trying to constrain the view system to "realistic head positions" is just plain ridiculous when we don't have realistic vision in almost every other respect.  Just like we need to have icons to make up for the poor substitute for vision that these computer monitors are, we have to make allowances with a viewing system.  Allowing more viewing angles is required to make up for the loss of area of vision and peripheral vision inherent in a simulation like this.  Limit it too much, and it's much LESS realistic in terms of what the pilot could really see.

Now certainly, there are a few adjustments that could be made, particularly things like where the pilot can stick his head through the glass, and some sort of G effects.  However, the system we have now is pretty damn good IMHO, and limiting the view positions just to make it more difficult is not going to make it any better.  Some allowances have to be made for the medium we are working with.

------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer

A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com

Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome for AH articles and training info!

[Westy MOL]

 I've already admitted in several topics that IMO several aircraft have too much latitude in some views. Not that many and only a few views at that.
 I just do not agree with your description, or overall point in regard to the six view. It almost sounds like you're getting an excuse ready and on stand by for WW2O  

 If we were real pilots we would not have our shoulders bolted to our seat backs and we would not be literally rendered immobile. I've already added real life pilot testimony to help back up my opinion which is based on having sat in several WWII fighters as well as what I've been told from many WWII Pilots who flew these planes. Cessna types and light aerobatic aircraft don't compare at all and they make a very sad testimony to any developer who would use that experience to justify removing so much of the field of view.

 We do not have working rear view mirrors in AH for any of the razor back type planes; Spit, 109, P-47 etc. For that there should be some leeway as a compromise. Or untill we all have 1.7ghz computers with $800.00 gfx cards in them to handle the extra load a rear view mirrior would create here.

 However I do believe that in any sim we should NOT be able to go from a 7 view to a 5 view without having to go all the way forward and around first.

 And the icons problem is a critical peice in all this.

 BTW, I thought you quit AH?  
 
 -Westy

[Kirin]

WW2 pilots account that rear mirrors were rendered practically useless due to vibrations...

Hmm - wonder what happens to a pilot who's not strapped in and tries to fly ACM or any other kind of aerobatics... (I think I saw a funny action flick where a pilot fell from his spitfire flying inverted...   - it's from the iron eagle series if I recall right   )

[SeaWulfe]

Apples 'n Oranges.

Computer Monitor vs Real World Eye balls with peripheral vision.


17" Leph? You lucky bastard, some of us out there still have 15".

You just can't recreate some things on a 2D monitor screen....

When 3D glasses come out with the full ability to rotate your head everywhich way, have good peripheral vision and don't burn your eye balls into BBQ... THEN we can revisit this topic about restricting views.
-SW

[Jigster]

And the rear view mirror being made useless by vibrations is BS in many situations.

Sure, you can't see something closing in from several miles behind you because the little speck will jump all over the place. But at close ranges, a vibrating mirror still works quite well. More for checking the blind spot in close fighting then scanning.

Get some mud tires and a good stereo and try highway speeds someday...you can still see very well   (yeah yeah it's a crappy comparison but I have to live with it daily)

[Westy MOL]

"Hmm - wonder what happens to a pilot who's not strapped in and tries to fly ACM or any other kind of aerobatics..."

 I guess you imagine they bounce around like a Mexican jumping bean. Wrong. Simple centrifugal force does the job. It keeps them in thier seat except for whenever they might find themselves stalled out completely at the top of a loop in which case the seat belt holds them in. Ironeagles? Hollywood? <patooey!>

  Do you imagine these guys as wet noodle neck, coach potatoes flabby boys sitting in a cockpit and being bounced left and right and forward and back ward?  By what? Basic physics are at play. Action gets a reaction.  What are they and thier aircraft flying into or hitting that would cause them to jerk about in a cockpit? Even winds wouldn't do it unless it was a really bad storm.

  The only time any of the pilots, I've asked about this, commented on being jostled in the cockpit was when 88mm ack went off too close and the impact of the energy from that shook thier plane.

 -Westy



[This message has been edited by Westy MOL (edited 06-05-2001).]

[Toad]

Well, the neggies will lift you out of your seat some.  

The positives just press you into it.

[Vermillion]

Kirin, when I flew the AT-6 Texan thru aerobatics, I was very loosely strapped in and could easily move my body around. And even though I felt I was not secure in the seat before we took off, the instructor pilot told me I had the straps too tight.

He was right. Never once did I feel like I was gonna flop around the cockpit.

We flew just about every standard aerobatic manuever you can think off, up to 5 G's.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[Kirin]

Westy - for all who didn't get it: The Iron Eagle thingy was a joke!! But true anyhow, fly inverted without being strapped in (tight or loose) you gonna get serious head ache (canopy closed) or even more serious head ache (canopy open)...

Physics - yup that's the point. Action-Reaction: alright, imagine hard breaks, violent jinks, going from +6Gs to -2Gs in seconds - quickly changing the force vector on your mass. As long as the force vector is pointed towards your seat NP - no matter how many Gs u pull (keeping out of discussion that your head will weigh a lot more), agreed. But if you try the famous escape manouvers early 109s used vs. early spits (push the stick to the edge) you better be strapped in good or your head gonna make a nice bloody mark on your canopy.

Verm, I believe you...   still I say that in aircombat you will apply much harsher manouvers, g-load changes, negative g conditions etc. that will require good strapping (maybe not like being clued to your seat but still more than AH induces with its unrestricted head movement capabilites)...

[Kirin]

Hmm... just made up my mind (to a certain extent)...

Not being strapped in would mean that your body will only feel earths gravitation and the forces from the seat (nullifying g from the bottom and giving you a forward vector from the back) - if your manouvering induces any changes of the planes flight vector other than in any direction your seat can compensate (e.g. -g, deceleration) your body will travel on in that direction (what is Trägheit called in english??) it was moving before. So better have some force (belt) compensating or you'll flop around like a mexican bean.

Basic physics, bad english...

[SeaWulfe]

I'm sure there's a few military fighter pilots that fly AH, why not ask them rather than second guessing everything?
-SW

[Westy MOL]

 Yes, but maneuvers in an aircraft are not extreme nor are they sudden and abrupt change of directions unless effected by an extrenal force. The pilot knows where he is directing his aircraft and his body subconciuously anticipates and accomodates any changes brought by maneuvers. So even on the sharpest turn, tightest loop the pilot isn't bounced all around in a cockpit out of control. It's not as if he is an unaware and passive passenger in his own aircraft who does not know what is happening or what direction the plane may be going in.

 -Westy

[Professor Fate]

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Professor Fate ]

[Daff]

Westy...rolling and slipping, especially the way it's done in AH, will severly throw you around in the cockpit...add the outside maneuvers to that and you will need to be strapped in.
Also..initial the US used the RAF style 4-point Sutton harness, which unless is strapped *tight*, is useless. (If you dont believ me, I will happily arrange for you to go up in a Tiger Moth and do aeros without strapping in tightly.).
Yes 'gentleman-aerobatic' will keep you with positive G's throughout, even if it means pinching the loop, but I would hardly call the ACM in AH for 'gentle'  

Daff

[Professor Fate]

Btw, apparently the windscreen on a 190 doesn't converge near the fuselage either.

   

don't think I need to post an ahss to compare.

[ 06-16-2001: Message edited by: Professor Fate ]