Mossi IV!

[Nemisis]

What about the B5N, and TBM bozon?

[SmokinLoon]

I can see this becoming a debate on the application  of the F3 view, and as such I'll gladly be the first to dive it.   

IMO, the operation of the Mossi, regardless of which variant being discussed, does NOT need or warrant a need for F3 view.  I think it is sad that the gifting of the F3 view is applied to a CLASS of aircraft and not individual aircraft with particular attributes (i.e: aircraft w/ ventral and dorsal gunners and multiple engines, etc). 

F3 allows an instant 360 degree view around an aircraft.  Unless the aircraft in question has both dorsal and ventral turrets with 360 degree rotation, there is not true 360 degree field of view.  Aircraft like the Il-2, Boston/A20, 110x, Ju-87, etc with only rear dorsal turrets may have a 180 (or slightly more) view of the top rear and maybe even a lower right/left view of the rear, but certainly NOT to the extreme front and below.  Heck, one could even take things a bit more extreme and say that the A20 and the Boston are 2 different things: the A20 rear dorsal gunner is restricted by the turret while the Boston real dorsal gunner is not restricted and is ale to hang his head out over the side of the aircarft for a better view.  Question is obviously, how could those 2 minute differences be modeled??? 

I certainly hope that HTC rethinks their current application of the F3 view.  There are aircraft, regardless of their classification that do not warrant the use of F3 view.  The Mossi bomber and the Il-2 are 2 of the tops, imo.

[Karnak]

I can see this becoming a debate on the application  of the F3 view, and as such I'll gladly be the first to dive it.   

IMO, the operation of the Mossi, regardless of which variant being discussed, does NOT need or warrant a need for F3 view.  I think it is sad that the gifting of the F3 view is applied to a CLASS of aircraft and not individual aircraft with particular attributes (i.e: aircraft w/ ventral and dorsal gunners and multiple engines, etc). 

F3 allows an instant 360 degree view around an aircraft.  Unless the aircraft in question has both dorsal and ventral turrets with 360 degree rotation, there is not true 360 degree field of view.  Aircraft like the Il-2, Boston/A20, 110x, Ju-87, etc with only rear dorsal turrets may have a 180 (or slightly more) view of the top rear and maybe even a lower right/left view of the rear, but certainly NOT to the extreme front and below.  Heck, one could even take things a bit more extreme and say that the A20 and the Boston are 2 different things: the A20 rear dorsal gunner is restricted by the turret while the Boston real dorsal gunner is not restricted and is ale to hang his head out over the side of the aircarft for a better view.  Question is obviously, how could those 2 minute differences be modeled??? 

I certainly hope that HTC rethinks their current application of the F3 view.  There are aircraft, regardless of their classification that do not warrant the use of F3 view.  The Mossi bomber and the Il-2 are 2 of the tops, imo.

By your argument only the B-17 and B-24 should have the F3 view.

[Nemisis]

The Ju-88 would come close, since the entire nose and cocpit area is glass near enough. About all that can't be seen is directly below the aircraft.

[SmokinLoon]

By your argument only the B-17 and B-24 should have the F3 view.

I did not argue that, I simply made a point. 

True 360 degree views can only be achieved by one thing, really.  Having a set of eyes both forward dorsal and ventral and rearward dorsal and ventral.  Since humans do not have eyes on the back of our heads, more than 1 set of eyes is needed to achieve true 360 degrees views at once.  If there was a way to lock in the F3 view to the distant rear of the gunner in question I'd be all for it.   

[jdbecks]

I thought F3 view was ment to repersent that the plane had 360 degree view with the manned postions, not because it had a bomb site. Although I think none of the planes should have an F3 View in the MA

[Nemisis]

I've always felt F3 represented all the pairs of eyes working together as well. I feel all but the B-17, B-24, B-26, and the Ju-88 should have F3 disabled, but I will really miss it for landing bombers.

[Karnak]

I've always felt F3 represented all the pairs of eyes working together as well. I feel all but the B-17, B-24, B-26, and the Ju-88 should have F3 disabled, but I will really miss it for landing bombers.

If the Ju88 should have the F3 view, why not the Ki-67 or Lancaster?

[Nemisis]

Because about the only area not covered in a Ju-88 is directly below the aircraft. Lancaster and Ki-67 might qualify for F3 mode, I just didn't think about them because I never use them.

[SmokinLoon]

I wonder if there would be a way for HTC to disable all views other than the F3.  If the F8 were disabled, then the 360 degree pan would not be available and if the F5 view would not be available then the insta-panaramic view would not be available....

if only the F3 view was available perhaps it would be close to the real deal view as possible???  A locked F3 view would still allow the gunner to pan in all directions available particular to him, and not towards areas that would not. 

[Karnak]

I wonder if there would be a way for HTC to disable all views other than the F3.  If the F8 were disabled, then the 360 degree pan would not be available and if the F5 view would not be available then the insta-panaramic view would not be available....

if only the F3 view was available perhaps it would be close to the real deal view as possible???  A locked F3 view would still allow the gunner to pan in all directions available particular to him, and not towards areas that would not. 

That defeats the whole point of the idea and you may as well remove F3 altogether.  The idea isn't that you can see what the gunner in the position you have selected could see, you can do that from first person F1 perspective.  The idea is that you have many sets of eyes looking many directions who can all warn of an enemy contact.  Particularly look at the B-17, B-24, B-25s, B-26, Ju88, Ki-67 and Lancaster's views in total from all positions.  I agree that things like the D3A and Il-2 are awkward, but removing the F3 view from those also removes any easy access to the 6 o'clock and 6 o'clock high views which would be covered.  Look at the 6 view from the IL-2's cockpit.

[bozon]

I thought that the purpose of F3 was to enjoy the beauty of your plane on those long eventless bombing sorties. How can you take out a mossie and not want to look at yourself while you are on auto climb / auto level.