Author Topic: 6 View in the F4U (Read 700 times)

K West · « **Reply #15 on:** June 10, 2002, 08:20:59 AM »

" He is saying that the 6 view for all the corsair varients in AH is accurate. "

Having sat in the XF4U-4 and actually checked the view out I agree with him 100%. It has a vry goiod six view. No direct six view but with the canopy closed you CAN see most of the elevator, top half of the rudder at least and anything between.

This is the XF4U-4 that anyone (unless you're obese) can sit in on "Open cockpit" weekends in Connecticut:

Westy

F4UDOA · « **Reply #16 on:** June 10, 2002, 08:54:49 AM »

Kweassa,

The F4U canopy was called a buldged caopy because it was buldged on the sides as well. This allowed you to turn your head side to side. In other words the width of the canopy was wider that the width of the fuselage.

Here is a F4U-1D canopy

F4UDOA · « **Reply #17 on:** June 10, 2002, 09:55:50 AM »

Here is the Me109G-10

Galland hood

F4UDOA · « **Reply #18 on:** June 10, 2002, 09:57:53 AM »

Spitfire IX buldged canopy

F4UDOA · « **Reply #19 on:** June 10, 2002, 09:59:55 AM »

Me109G2

This is the worst of the pack. But none of these are any better than the F4U.

ra · « **Reply #20 on:** June 10, 2002, 12:51:53 PM »

<< Now, as Ra said, the cockpit looks almost impossible to close, yet it is possible.>>

Kweassa,

I still don't think it would be possible to close the canopy with the pilot's head above the level of the headrest. He would have to keep is head tilted forward to clear the rear of the canopy. Those pictures all have the canopy open because the seat is raised to the landing/taxiing postion. I have never seen a picture of an F4U with the pilot's head that high and the canopy closed. I have no problem with the AH 6 view for the F4U, but I don't believe these pictures of the pilot's head sticking way up with the canopy open reflect the actual pilot's head position during combat.

ra

jedi · « **Reply #21 on:** June 10, 2002, 04:45:52 PM »

Hehe always amazing how folks will twist their logic in order to "prove" you couldn't see out of an F4U

The simple fact is that the seat WAS adjustable, and there IS "space" above the rear deck of the aircraft that would present NO obstruction for the pilot's eyes, canopy open OR closed.

The only question then is, "Could the pilot somehow contort himself into a position to actually SEE out of that space?" This is usually followed by all manner of obfuscation, talking about shoulder harnesses, head against glass, inability to view from "outside the canopy," blah, blah, blah. What utter hypocrisy.

The sim ALLOWS you to use the "Linda Blair" view, and it allows you to adjust your view angle to get slightly "outside" the canopy, and it does so in EVERY plane. Funny how the Corsair gets singled out as pretty much the ONLY plane that isn't supposed to be able to benefit from these little inaccuracies in modeling, despite the fact that the REAL plane was pretty clearly in the "Mustang class" with regards to its actual rearward visibility.

Take a good look at those Bf-109 pics up there, and then go try and create the "best" rear view you can in the sim in the 109 and the Corsair. If you can then say with a straight face that the Corsair and 109 have the "correct" rear view RELATIVE to each other, then you are full of crap.

(Hehe don't get your panties in a wad--just testing to see if my login still works in here, and saw my favorite topic. Might even test to see if my handle still works in the arenas one of these days...)

Wmaker · « **Reply #22 on:** June 10, 2002, 05:34:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by jedi
Funny how the Corsair gets singled out as pretty much the ONLY plane that isn't supposed to be able to benefit from these little inaccuracies in modeling, despite the fact that the REAL plane was pretty clearly in the "Mustang class" with regards to its actual rearward visibility.

"pretty much the ONLY plane" is fairly subjective but could you provide links to at least 5 threads where Corsair gets singled out as having the ONLY "too generous" 6-view of the whole AH plane set of AH on this forum? ...And off course at the same time say that virtually no other plane's 6-view have been claimed as such when you do so yourself?

jedi · « **Reply #23 on:** June 10, 2002, 10:44:36 PM »

could you provide links to at least 5 threads where Corsair gets singled out as having the ONLY "too generous" 6-view of the whole AH plane set of AH on this forum?

Hehe, no, I couldn't, because that's not what I said. In fact, it's not even close to what I said. Your comment about "other planes" also has nothing to do with what I said, but nice try at putting words into my mouth

You need to read a little more carefully, I think

Wmaker · « **Reply #24 on:** June 11, 2002, 07:13:59 AM »

First you say: "Corsair gets singled out as pretty much the ONLY plane that isn't supposed to be able to benefit from these little inaccuracies in modeling"

And then you "single out Bf109": "Take a good look at those Bf-109 pics up there, and then go try and create the "best" rear view you can in the sim in the 109 and the Corsair. If you can then say with a straight face that the Corsair and 109 have the "correct" rear view RELATIVE to each other, then you are full of crap."

So, obviously you are more than happy to single out Bf109 and at the same time you indicate F4U's six view should be left alone.

HTC develops this sim and improves things that they think need improving *at the moment*. There are couple of planes where you can setup your view "outside the 3d-model" (Bf110's rear gunner position, F6F and Ju-88 comes to mind). Í'm sure HTC adjusts these view limits at some point. Personally, I don't see this it as very urgent matter.

jedi · « **Reply #25 on:** June 11, 2002, 10:30:36 AM »

Yes, how interesting that giving the 109 its "accurate" MORE-obstructed view and giving the F4U it's "accurate" LESS-obstructed view isn't seen as "very urgent."

It wasn't seen as "very urgent" in Warbirds either. At least not by the LW and Finn pilots. Wonder why that was...

Wmaker · « **Reply #26 on:** June 11, 2002, 12:53:13 PM »

Hmm...I don't quite follow you here jedi.

...and giving the F4U it's "accurate" LESS-obstructed view isn't seen as "very urgent."

You must be the only one in this thread who thinks that F4U's 6-view in AH too obstructed?

Personally I couldn't care less if they make 109's 6-view more obstructed (along bunch of others...I think we can see too well out of almost every plane in AH). If they find a good way to get rid of "the linda blair" 6-view I'm all for it too.

When I think that 6-view-thing isn't the most urgent I'm automatically labeled biased...that's interesting. I want to have a WWII era sim that's as realistic as it can practically be on PC. I try to view these things as objectively as I can. If they find something *too good* in "my" plane then by all means change it...that takes me closer to real world.

I'm not one of those guys who strive to make their opponents plane worse and "my" own ride better just to sling mud and to get an advantage. Personally I find BS like that fairly childish.

DmdNexus · « **Reply #27 on:** June 11, 2002, 01:48:31 PM »

Wmaker,

Go back to school and learn to read, man, and take a chill pill while your at it - no one said you were biased or any of that other watermelon you are talking about.

Man are you off the wall in your comments.

You need to re-read and read more carefully what is said.

Capiche?

Wmaker · « **Reply #28 on:** June 11, 2002, 01:56:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by jedi
Yes, how interesting that giving the 109 its "accurate" MORE-obstructed view and giving the F4U it's "accurate" LESS-obstructed view isn't seen as "very urgent."

It wasn't seen as "very urgent" in Warbirds either. At least not by the LW and Finn pilots. Wonder why that was...

Hehe Nexus...nothing even remotely implying to that direction here?? I think your personal attack was un called for. Bad day at work or something?

DassM0rt · « **Reply #29 on:** June 13, 2002, 07:55:57 AM »

regarding the pictures in this thread, could someone point me to a resource for those?
It's great viewing those old pics!