-
I've spent a far amount of time researching the various gun sights used on the planes in Aces High. I prefer to use a gun sight that is as historically correct as possible and use the deflection shooting methods described in the PIF and GIF. But after some time I've come to suspect that the sights are not always accurately scaled in each plane.
So I started doing some analysis and took some screen shots.
First I'd like to cover the math and how I calculated what I think the size of the gun sight should be. From the Pilots Information File (PIF) a mil is defined as 1/6400th of a circle. So if you divide 360 by 6400 you get 1 mil equals 0.05625 degrees. Next, again from the PIF, I found that the standard N-9 sight has a 70 mil outer ring. So doing the math of 0.05625 multiplied by 70 I came up with 3.9375 degrees for the outer ring (I rounded up to 4 degrees). Next I opened Aces High and checked that my screens filed of view is set to 100 degrees. With a resolution of 1680 by 1050 that means 1 degree equals 16.8 pixels. Then 4 degrees on the monitor equals 67 pixels for the gun sight.
Of the planes I've checked most are pretty close with one major exception. The best so far is the F6F-5 it happens to be exactly correct. I've included the zoomed images below. NOTE: all images were taken from the default home head position to eliminate any movement error.
So here is the F6F-5
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/F6F-5zoom.jpg)
The full size image is here,
http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/F6F-5.jpg (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/F6F-5.jpg)
The next closest one is the P-38J, by my calculation the sight is about 3% to small
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/P-38Jzoom.jpg)
The full size image is here,
http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/P-38J.jpg (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/P-38J.jpg)
Then comes the P-47D-25, by my calculation the sight is about 5% to large
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/P-47D-25zoom.jpg)
The full size image is here,
http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/P-47D-25.jpg (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/P-47D-25.jpg)
Then the P-51B, by my calculation the sight is about 10% to large
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/P-51Bzoom.jpg)
The full size image is here,
http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/P-51B.jpg (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/P-51B.jpg)
The P-51D by my calculation the sight is about 12% to small
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/P-51Dzoom.jpg)
The full size image is here,
http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/P-51D.jpg (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/P-51D.jpg)
The most significant error is with the F4U-1D by my calculation the sight is about 27% to small
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/F4U-1Dzoom.jpg)
The full size image is here,
http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/F4U-1D.jpg (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/F4U-1D.jpg)
I think anything within +/- 10% is acceptable for game play and the calculations from the PIF for calculating lead seem to work just fine. However, once you move beyond a 10% error it is extremely difficult to use the sight for any kind of calculation. I know this isn't a major issue but if I've covered everything correctly I think it should be addressed. Also if there are any errors in my calculations or if I've made an error in understanding I'm looking for feedback.
<S> Baumer
-
But what about the axis gun sights?
-
Unfortunately I don't have any data as to the specifics of the Revi series that I can reference for the reticule size.
If someone can post the size of a Revi16D (or any other sights they can provide specifics on) I'll be glad to check into them as well.
-
I thought a "mil" was short for milliradian, or 1/1000 of a radian. There are 2*pi radians in a circle or 2000*pi = 6283.2 milliradians per circle?
-
It seems that the variations in gun sight size could be caused by the default head position, the sight ring size or a combination of both. I can imagine a relationship between the small F4u-1D sight and the poor rear view but I realize it's likely just coincidence.
The P-51D sight appears to be set to a DO 217 which has a 62 ft wingspan. The range setting is unreadable. The Spit 9 is set to a 45 ft wingspan at 580 yards. I don't know if the sights actually reflect these settings.
You can "correct" the sight ring size by adjusting your head position so the sight matches a standard fighter wingspan like 32-36 ft at 100 yards. Are you looking for the default head position to give you that sight size for all the fighters?
-
I thought a "mil" was short for milliradian, or 1/1000 of a radian. There are 2*pi radians in a circle or 2000*pi = 6283.2 milliradians per circle?
You are technically correct for the original definition of a Mil, however the US adopted the metric Mil in 1940 for optic systems.
Here is the page from the 1943 Fighter Gunnery Manual;
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/Mil.jpg)
-
It seems that the variations in gun sight size could be caused by the default head position, the sight ring size or a combination of both. I can imagine a relationship between the small F4u-1D sight and the poor rear view but I realize it's likely just coincidence.
The P-51D sight appears to be set to a DO 217 which has a 62 ft wingspan. The range setting is unreadable. The Spit 9 is set to a 45 ft wingspan at 580 yards. I don't know if the sights actually reflect these settings.
You can "correct" the sight ring size by adjusting your head position so the sight matches a standard fighter wingspan like 32-36 ft at 100 yards. Are you looking for the default head position to give you that sight size for all the fighters?
FLS I understand that to a degree I can scale the gun-sight bitmap to get the proper size (especially when the error is less than 10%). Also as you pointed out some of this can be compensated for by moving the head position. While that is technically not correct (see page below from the Fighter Gunnery Manual) it does allow for some addition flexibility.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/cone.jpg)
The problem with the F4U is that you have to almost all the way forward to make even close to accurate.
I have no issue with how the size changes as you move you head position. And I don't mind correcting the scaling of each sight for every plane when I can. The problem is that with the F4U (and maybe others) is that within all that flexibility it just isn't possible to get a correct sight image size with a reasonable head position.
-
Baumer I believe you are correct sir.
Not sure if it will change anything, but I have been hearing complaints about the F4u's sight for quite some time now. Certainly would be nice to see things brought up to snuff when possible.
-
since reflector gunsights are a virtual image effectively infinitely far away, the head position shouldnt make any difference should it? :headscratch:
<< bad eyesight, not great with optics ...
-
Baumer I do not 100% understand the issue, Are you simply saying you wish 1 sight would be the same mill on all planes? I.E. you want the gunfight square to be a consistent mill size?
Because you can very simply make a correctly calibrated sight for each plane.
HiTech
-
HT,
If I understood correctly it looks like he was saying the gunsight is to small on the F4U. I don't think you can change the size of the site itself, no matter how big you make the site in the .bmp file it will still be limited by the size of the gunsight 'model' in the plane. The yak and la-7 also have tiny little gunsights, or they used to. Not sure how big they should be though.
-
Baumer,
Actually, if you use the correct gunsight for the F4U (US Mk.8, the version in which the cross extends past the ring) the sight is HALF the size it should be. I analyzed this in GREAT detail in a thread a while back, based on calculations using the Dora. But here's some comparison pics:
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Misc/Sights.png)
Here's both versions of the Mk.8 sight that we have. Both were shots were taken at default head position, and it's the one on the right (the full cross) that you want to look at (incidentally, this is also the gunsight used by the F6F-5 and FM-2).
There are three rings on the sight: 25mil inner, 50mil middle, and 100mil outer. Per the description of the sight, with a 100mil calibration a target with a 30-foot wingspan should have its wingtips touching the middle (50mil) at a range of 200 yards. The Dora has a wingspan of 39ft, so at the time I did my calculations was the closest of the drones I could use for my test.
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Misc/DoraSight200.png)
Here is the Dora with the full Mk.8 sight at default head position. Note that at 200 yards the Dora's wingspan fills the OUTER ring. This is incorrect per the above description, as it should be using the middle ring instead.
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Misc/SightsAdjusted.png)
Here's the sight on the right from the first image adjusted to what it SHOULD look like based on calculations I did using the Dora.
In order to account for the discrepancy in how ranges are displayed, I also independently confirmed the scaling issue using the .target command. I spawned a Dora and set .target to absolute minimum range, then took an external screenshot. I then re-upped in a Hog and compared how it looked when I set .target to 200yds, confirming that my above test results were correct.
HT,
Urchin is correct, the issue isn't the dimensions of the BMP file, it's how the gunsight is "modeled" in the aircraft itself. I've already tried changing the size of the gunsight using the BMP file, but it couldn't make the scaling any bigger (I can only make it smaller, or give it a lower resolution).
-
RTHolmes you are correct, in reality the sight shouldn't change size when you move your head, but that's not how it works in Aces High.
Saxman I don't think your calculation is correct but I will double check it. Also, I think it's better to do this by calculating the math than relying on a bitmap file to get the proper size. Don't forget the Mk8 was also used on the TBM-3 which is also suspect.
Hitech Yes for most gun sights a small amount of correction is possible by adjusting the image within the gun sight bitmap. However the problem with the F4U is the gunsight bitmap dose not cover the correct Mil angle. I will show you what I mean with a test gun sight.
Here is the test grid gun sight bitmap;
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/1%20A%20TestPattern.bmp)
As you see it has a single pixel boarder with a simple cross. So the maximum usable size of any image 254 by 254 if you don't want any bleed over.
This is how the image looks in game.
http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/F4U-1Dtp.jpg (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/F4U-1Dtp.jpg)
Zooming in the sight is only 61 pixels wide, for a 100 mil USN Mk8 sight the image should be 94 pixels wide.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/F4U-1DtpZOOM.jpg)
The only issue comes up when the Mil angle (of any given sight) falls outside of the width that you can use in game. I brought this up for 2 reasons, first to point out the issue with the F4U. Secondly I wanted to point this out to the people who are interested in custom sights, to show that scaling the image is important if you want it accurate for each plane.
-
Baumer doesn't the adjustment on the reflector sight change the ring size for the mil setting and range set by the pilot? So 70 mils might be the standard training sight but all aircraft wouldn't have a 70 mil ring all the time. I understand the advantage of having a consistent size but that still won't give you more realism except when your target is the correct size at the correct distance.
-
Saxman I don't think your calculation is correct but I will double check it. Also, I think it's better to do this by calculating the math than relying on a bitmap file to get the proper size. Don't forget the Mk8 was also used on the TBM-3 which is also suspect.
I based my calculations off the historical gunsight calibration: the Mk.8 was calibrated so that an aircraft with a 30ft wingspan would fill the second (50mil) ring of the sight at a range of 200 yards. This doesn't change across the F4U, TBM, or F6F. On the Mk.8 an aircraft at 30ft wingspan filled the 50mil ring, simple as that. AFAIK it couldn't be adjusted for the wingspan of the target like the K-14 added later to the P-51, P-38 and P-47 could. I demonstrated using the Fw-190D that this is NOT the case at default head position. At default position, both wings fill the OUTER ring (testing at 400 yards the Dora filled the middle ring, precisely double the range at which it should be.). Although there's a small variance as the Dora's wingspan is slightly larger than 30' (I made a mistake in my first post, the 190D had a wingspan of 34', not 39) the scaling indicates the gunsight would need to be roughly doubled in size to correct this. Note that once again I'm using the FULL Mk.8 sight with the extended cross as seen on the right, NOT the cut-down version that just uses the rings.
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Misc/Sights.png)
If you're basing your calculations off the one on the left, you WILL end up with different results.
-
Saxman I don't think your calculation is correct but I will double check it.
A mil is a mil (well, except for the slight error of "metric" mils) and geometry is geometry: 30 ft at a range of 200 yds subtends 50 mils. (It's actually 199.8 yds using real angles.)
-
Baumer doesn't the adjustment on the reflector sight change the ring size for the mil setting and range set by the pilot? So 70 mils might be the standard training sight but all aircraft wouldn't have a 70 mil ring all the time. I understand the advantage of having a consistent size but that still won't give you more realism except when your target is the correct size at the correct distance.
FLS that gets into the specifics of each sight model some could be adjusted while others could not.
The standard for the N-9 sight was the inner ring is 35 Mil and the outer ring is 70 Mil
-
Saxman do the following calculation and insert the resolution of your screen to get the proper pixel size.
360 / 6400 = 0.05625, so 1 Mil is 0.05625 degrees
0.05625 x 100 = 5.625, so 100 Mils is 5.625 degrees
0.05625 x 50 = 2.8125, so 50 Mils is 2.8125 degrees
0.05625 x 25 = 1.40625, so 25 Mils is 1.40625 degrees
Now check your field of view setting in Aces High. For My system the FoV is 100 degrees and my horizontal resolution is 1680.
1680 / 100 = 16.8, so 1 degree FoV = 16.8 pixels
Now;
1.40625 x 16.8 = 23.625, so 25 Mil is 23.625 pixels on my system
2.8125 x 16.8 = 47.25, so 50 Mil is 47.25 pixels on my system
5.625 x 16.8 = 94.5, so 100 Mil is 94.5 pixels on my system
That is how large the math says the image should be.
-
1920px horizontal, at 100 FoV
1920 / 100 = 19.2
100 Mil = 108 pixels on my system.
In the adjusted sight shot, which was done from default head position on my system:
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Misc/SightsAdjusted.png)
JUST the 100mil circle (excluding the extended cross) comes to about 95px. Allowing a +/- margin for error, AND errors in my mocked-up gunsight, I would say that more or less confirms my calculations based on target wingspan. For the full-cross Mk.8 sight to scale properly, the size of the gunsight in the bubble top Corsairs needs to be doubled (The -1 Birdcage is more troublesome, however while I see the Mk.8 referenced for the 1A/C/D and 4 I don't for the -1, so she MAY have used another sight).
-
Now I understand the issue Baumer, thanks.
HiTech
-
Now I understand the issue Baumer, thanks.
HiTech
*Hopes this means the Corsair gunsight modeling gets fixed.*
Sorry to push, I've just been wishing for that since the Hogs got remodeled. It's one of my top Corsair wishes, right up there with a lightened land-based 1A option. :D
-
1920px horizontal, at 100 FoV
1920 / 100 = 19.2
100 Mil = 108 pixels on my system.
In the adjusted sight shot, which was done from default head position on my system:
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Misc/SightsAdjusted.png)
JUST the 100mil circle (excluding the extended cross) comes to about 95px. Allowing a +/- margin for error, AND errors in my mocked-up gunsight, I would say that more or less confirms my calculations based on target wingspan. For the full-cross Mk.8 sight to scale properly, the size of the gunsight in the bubble top Corsairs needs to be doubled (The -1 Birdcage is more troublesome, however while I see the Mk.8 referenced for the 1A/C/D and 4 I don't for the -1, so she MAY have used another sight).
Actually, I might want to retake that screenshot as I MAY have had a smaller monitor when I did my original calculations. At one point I was using a 1600x1200 monitor, I can't remember if I upgraded to my current 1920 when I did these tests. If I still had the 1600 when I took the screenshot I posted, my adjusted sight would actually be nearly EXACT based on your own calculations (94x94 for the outer ring. Larger total if you include the extended cross).
Edited:
Ok, here's a new screenshot with the adjusted sight based on the calculations on how large the sight should be:
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Misc/SightAdjusted2.png)
The 100mil ring is 108x108, based on the formula you provided, resulting in the total size of the sight being 159x159. In order for the Mk.8 gunsight to be properly sized in the F4Us on a 1920x1200 monitor, the gunsight would need to be a total size of 159x159 pixels.
However I DO wonder whether it's the horizontal or vertical resolution that's most important, as I believe there's points where the vertical height of the FoV stays the same, while the horizontal resolution increases. This COULD throw off the size calculations.
-
Saxman I'm pretty sure the FOV has to change symmetrically.
-
One thing that still surprises my is how accurately HTC models the cockpits (I know I shouldn't be but when I stumble on a new way to verify it, I just smile)
Saxman, I doubt the sight for the Corsair should be the full 159 by 159 but I see what you're getting at. I suspect the image should be the same size as the projecting lens from the sight. Also the issue with the Mk8 100 mil sight seems to apply to all the USN aircraft not just the Corsair.
Here's the Corsair with your sight and where I suspect the image should stop.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/ScaledF4U.jpg)
Here's the Hellcat where I scaled up my Mk8 to the proper size
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/ScaledF6F.jpg)
And the FM2, even on the early 3D models the sight lens is still the right size.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/ScaledFM2.jpg)
I know this is a minor issue and I appreciate you looking at it Hitech.
<S> Baumer
-
boumer
A good and fair point on the gun-sights. I too now having read your post on them have found out what you are meaning.
But may i point out that in reality a pilot upon receivership of the aircraft he is to fly in-to combat would first have flown down to the gunnery range then had the aircraft raised at the back to imitate level flight. Then he would have sat in the cockpit and fired of a burst or two at a static target. then after that he would have manually adjusted the gun-sight up or down or diagonally. As well as setting his convergence on his bullets to a certain distance. Note that the pilot would have set his gun-sight to fit his position in the cockpit i.e the way he would slouch slightly to see the sight and the way he may have skwinted his eye's when firing. Note the sight was adjusted to his personal preference.
Now we in Ace's Only have the ability to set convergence in the game. But other games like iL2 you can also set your gun-sight up you can raise and lower move it side to side to fit the position you sit within the aircraft. And you can also increase the size of the gun-sight for your seating position
within the aircraft.
Do you think that if HiTech could implement in to the game that inside the main hangar we could also set the gun-sight to match our preferred seating position as we set our gun convergence. That it may help combat this . ????
As i said pilots did it for real in WW2
Maybe it should be tried and tested and if it help's then we should stick with it.
It's just me putting in my 2cents worth you may ignore me if you all wish. :salute :salute :aok :aok :aok :angel: :angel:
BulletVI
-
BulletVI
I think I understand what you're asking for, but I doubt HTC would implement it. The flexibility you are talking about was not available on all aircraft, for example in the US Navy planes the sight was not adjustable in any direction. Also, in the Corsair and Hellcat the seat has no forward or back travel. The only adjustment was to move the rudder pedals, not the seat. So if HTC was to implement what you're asking for, it would depend very much on what was historically possible for each particular aircraft.
But if HTC likes you idea maybe they will implement it, who knows?
-
BulletVI
I think I understand what you're asking for, but I doubt HTC would implement it. The flexibility you are talking about was not available on all aircraft, for example in the US Navy planes the sight was not adjustable in any direction. Also, in the Corsair and Hellcat the seat has no forward or back travel. The only adjustment was to move the rudder pedals, not the seat. So if HTC was to implement what you're asking for, it would depend very much on what was historically possible for each particular aircraft.
But if HTC likes you idea maybe they will implement it, who knows?
Ah i wasn't sure of the American aircraft but i know for certain that British aircraft the sight on most like the Spitfire was adjustable to the Pilot.
But even for the American Aircraft they could do it as an easy way for some people to understand on setting up the gun-sight. I understand it may not be historicaly accurate but for a computer game you can get away with it as it can be an easy fix for a simple to a no brainer problem. :salute :salute
-
Saxman, I doubt the sight for the Corsair should be the full 159 by 159 but I see what you're getting at. I suspect the image should be the same size as the projecting lens from the sight. Also the issue with the Mk8 100 mil sight seems to apply to all the USN aircraft not just the Corsair.
I think the size of the sight relative to the projector is a result of the known perspective issues within the game's engine, with objects further away appearing much smaller than they should. This is most clear in your images of the F6F and FM-2: the gunsight image shouldn't be cut off the way it is here.
The Corsair sight DOES also project somewhat differently, too. It's not projecting onto a small piece of glass attached directly to the sight, but that large glass plate well above it. It's feasible that the image could get enlarged in a manner similar to an overhead projector.
-
But what about the axis gun sights?
Well after digging through more of my files I've found information on the Revi 16B sight for the 190A-8 so I will be checking that as well.
-
Most gunsight reticules showed larger the the reflector glass. Here is what I mean as a example:
Type 98 gunsight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXsVg8F91t8
Mk. VIII gunsight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7KvpWloagE&feature=related
RAF TypeI Mk,II gunsight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blem3FlkaMc&feature=related
-
I've been following this thread and AKDogg's post lead me to this vid,it's quite interesting as it shows many options.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EayasHQYEGM&feature=related
:salute
PS: great stuff Baum. :aok
-
Some do and some don't, so I'm trying to be as specific as possible for each sight model and each implementation.
Having properly scaled the sights for a PB4Y-1 (B-24J) I can see that once again HTC got it right by allowing individual sights for each position. Since each turret is slightly different, I have scaled each turrets unique size, this is especially handy with the many different sights the Navy used.
-
Most gunsight reticules showed larger the the reflector glass. Here is what I mean as a example:
Type 98 gunsight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXsVg8F91t8
Mk. VIII gunsight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7KvpWloagE&feature=related
RAF TypeI Mk,II gunsight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blem3FlkaMc&feature=related
Looks like they showed somewhat larger than the physical projector lens, too. That means that a full sized Mk.VIII for the F4U would be completely fine, even though it's larger than the projector.
So how about it, HiTech? Can we get the F4U's gunsight enlarged now? :pray :pray :pray
-
Actually Saxman I've been doing a lot of research on this and the reflector sights have a collimated lens configuration so the image can't be larger than the lens. There can be a larger image in the reticule that you see when you move your head around but the image width has to stay the same.
I hope to be purchasing a working Mk8 MOD6 very soon and will be glad to share anything I learn. BTW the MOD6 is the version that shines directly on the screen not a sight glass.
-
nice short vid showing RAF Mk II Reflector in action :aok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blem3FlkaMc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blem3FlkaMc)
-
This is absolutely 100% incorrect. Objects appear exactly as they should. And are rendered in the exact same way as any other 3D game.
Baumer,
doug and I spoke of the issue we will be both changing the way the sight works, I.E. a 70 mill ring will stay 70 mill as you move you head fwd and back.
Also we will be changing the size of some of the smaller sights if we can.
Baumer, how many mills do you think the bmp should be accross?
HiTech
-
Hitech setting the sight texture to 128 Mil works out great.
-
Hitech setting the sight texture to 128 Mil works out great.
So what, that means on my system I'd have sights up to 138px across (1920 resolution at 100 FoV)?
-
doug and I spoke of the issue we will be both changing the way the sight works, I.E. a 70 mill ring will stay 70 mill as you move you head fwd and back.
:aok :aok :aok
Next update is going to be very nice :)
-
Actually if I understood Hitech correctly, you'll have a maximum 140 pixel sight Saxman.
There was a difference in how HTC calculates the Mil versus what I posted above. So the sight will be correct in all planes not just the Corsar.
-
:rock :rock :rock :rock :rock :rock :rock
-
Great news Hitech, and big thanks to you Baumer! :aok
-
Many Thanks Boumer And to you as-well hitech. I cant wait for the new gunsight's in the next update now :)
Tell me hitech the sight's that can be manualy adjusted are we going to beable to do that with them or we waiting a bit longer for that one :headscratch: :headscratch
Any Hoow Nice work cant wait to kill kill kill kill more plane's now :) :aok :aok :aok :aok
-
Your quite welcome, and yes you will still be able to make custom sights. Now it will be possible to accurately scale the historically correct ones.
Wmaker do you know what model of sight was used in the Brewster?
-
Wmaker do you know what model of sight was used in the Brewster?
Our Brewster uses Finnish Vaisala T.h.m.40 sight which is basically a license built German Revi 3C/D. What I do not know is if the sight picture was the same as in Revi 3s or was it some sort of "unique" Finnish design. We asked this a few years ago from one of the Finnish Brewster-veteran's Mr.Georg Strömberg. He just recalled that it had " a somekind of cross reticle" but didn't he remember enough to describe it accurately...which is rather understandable considering the time passed and the rather specific nature of the question. :) :salute
I'm currently using my own Revi3D modification of Vuokko's Revi C/12D. AFAIK it isn't scaled in anyway but it looks good. :)
Here's the sight picture of a Revi 3C/D from the Revi 3C/D manual:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/revi3cd.jpg)
AFAIK the inner ring isn't there in the sight itself, it's only drawn to the drawing to illustrate the distance of which the ends of the horisontal lines represent
Another possibility is that the T.h.m.40 resembled this T.h.m.44 sight which was of Finnish design and used in the Finnish VL Myrsky fighters:
(http://gunsight.jp/b/image3/image5.jpg)
http://gunsight.jp/b/1/sight-thm44kk.htm (http://gunsight.jp/b/1/sight-thm44kk.htm)
I should get off my lazy a** and call/e-mail to couple Finnish aviation museums...then I'd probably know for sure. :)
-
The numbers for the Revi 3C/D are similar to the numbers I have for the 16B.
I'll try and scale it to see if there's going to be an issue with the B-239 sight fitting.
-
Your quite welcome, and yes you will still be able to make custom sights. Now it will be possible to accurately scale the historically correct ones.
Wmaker do you know what model of sight was used in the Brewster?
I wonder how they're going to do it. Are they going to keep it at the same pix/mil scale (IE, 140px on a 1920 monitor) for each plane and just cut off the parts that are too big for the glass so it looks like the video Dogg posted (and as you move your head around more or less of the sight will be visible)?
Also, what is the pixel to mil conversion of the actual BMP file itself in a paint program going to be? 1px = 1 mil (would seem to be easier to work with) or 2px = 1 mil (allowing more detailed 256x256 BMP files)?
-
I hope they keep it simple if all possible Saxman. I hate to have to completely redo my historical sights pack.
Baumer and wmaker, it would be greatly appreciated if you guys would send me any info on any gunsights u may have so I can check the historical sights pack for accuracy and correct reticule for the planes. If not, I understand.
Here is what I have:
www.arabian-knights.org/files/Dogg/Histgunsightdocs.zip
http://www.errthum.com/troy/warbirds/gunsites/history.html
-
got to say this thread is a great example of how users and devs can interact to create a better product :aok
I only wish the devs of some of the BS business apps I encounter would take note and do more of this :rolleyes:
-
From talking with Hitech it sounds like the sight.bmp will be scaled to 128 Mils. So for a 256x256 bitmap it would be 2 pixels per Mil. That texture is then placed on the sight poly and if the image is larger than the poly it will be truncated similar to the videos (I think).
And going forward just to be clear, 1 Mil for HTC equals 0.05730 degrees versus the 0.05625 degrees I was using. Although (as usual) Hitech was going faster than I could keep up :) I'm sure it makes sense. But regardless of which Mil you use the sight.bmp will handle the largest angles correctly.
AKDogg I think it would be easier for me to go over all the sights with you on a phone call or Skype if you have it. Or I can set you up on my squads Ventrillo if that works better.
Just send me a PM and we can work it out.
-
got to say this thread is a great example of how users and devs can interact to create a better product :aok
I completely agree, if you take your time, and present your information in a clear manner, HTC seems very willing to work through any issues. This has been one of the biggest surprises for me, with regards to the game, and is an example of why HTC is so successful in their field.
Now I don't want to sound ungrateful, but I was wondering, since you're already working on the code to make these changes, is there any possibility of getting an analog command to control the alpha setting HTC? Since most sights historically had a rheostat (or a dim/bright switch) to adjust the brightness it would be extra handy to have as well.
:pray :angel:
If not, I completely understand and I'm very happy for the next release, but if by chance you can fit that in it would be absolutely wonderful.
-
You've got a magic touch, Baumer, I mentioned this way back when the Hogs got updated and not a word. Think you can convince Hitech to give us that lighter land-based FG-1A? ;-)
-
AKDogg I think it would be easier for me to go over all the sights with you on a phone call or Skype if you have it. Or I can set you up on my squads Ventrillo if that works better.
Just send me a PM and we can work it out.
What ever is easiest for u. <S>
BTW, if u decide to call me, number is on our CM board.
-
I completely agree, if you take your time, and present your information in a clear manner, HTC seems very willing to work through any issues. This has been one of the biggest surprises for me, with regards to the game, and is an example of why HTC is so successful in their field.
Now I don't want to sound ungrateful, but I was wondering, since you're already working on the code to make these changes, is there any possibility of getting an analog command to control the alpha setting HTC? Since most sights historically had a rheostat (or a dim/bright switch) to adjust the brightness it would be extra handy to have as well.
:pray :angel:
If not, I completely understand and I'm very happy for the next release, but if by chance you can fit that in it would be absolutely wonderful.
Now i wonder that if HTC update the gunsight's for every model if they would also upgrade them. I mean allow us the ability to adjust our gun sights on aircraft that they can be adjusted on. Be a bit better i believe as then if you adjust your convergance then you can either raise or lower the gun sight so that when you fire you see the round's converge in the centre and not slightly above and below. If HTC like's i shall try and find some information on this.
as with the proper info i believe that HTC would upgrade the sight's with this capability.
-
I read your post 3 times BulletVI and I don't understand what you're asking about. I'm sorry if these questions sound simplistic but lets start with these;
Do you know how to change the convergence of your guns in the hanger?
Do you know you can make you own custom gun sight?
Can you give a specific example of what you are talking about?
-
I think what he is talking about is setting the range on the gunsight. Some gunsights had a range switch on them that u can adjust or plane selector switch. Some gunsights had different colors to select from to by a flip of a switch. ex., the japanese type 98 gunsight had 2 colors, white and orangish red.
-
Great job Baumer and devs! While we're at it, maybe you guys could figure out how to make the sights adjustable for target size, ie. being able to adjust base range/wingspan setting so we know what 200 yds looks like from any target, not just fighters. Range icons are for kids :devil
-
I think what he is talking about is setting the range on the gunsight. Some gunsights had a range switch on them that u can adjust or plane selector switch. Some gunsights had different colors to select from to by a flip of a switch. ex., the Japanese type 98 gunsight had 2 colors, white and orange red.
S AkDogg said but as well as change colour and size an what not. British gun sight's where adjustable as we recognised that a 6' 6" tall pilot for example even hunched over never had a level line of sight through the gun sight.
Thus he then could fly to the gunnery range and have his aircraft raised at the tail to imitate level flight and fire his gun's. Now if his bullet's converged and they converged just above and below the centre dot that is on the standard British gun sight the pilot could then raise the gun sight so that the centre dot was bang in the middle of where the bullet rounds converged.
Our gun sight on our fighter's are basically manually calibrated and adjusted to the shooter's preferred setting's as you would do when you shoot a rifle on the firing range. you adjust the sight's to give you more accuracy i.e 2 clicks up 1 click left.
That's what many of the British and i believe some German sight's where able to be manually calibrated.
But further investigation is needed on this matter i do believe.
-
Yes there are adjustments you can make on a Barr and Stroud GM2/MkII sight.
No you could not set it to a 6 foot tall man. The adjustment was for wingspan with a minimum of 20 feet and a maximum of 100 feet. This moved the horizontal bars in or out, to the correct space for wingtip to wingtip from the dead 6. See the image below for the bars I'm talking about.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/B&S-GM2-MkII.jpg)
The next adjustment was to allow for the drop due to gravity at that range. This did nothing to calculate lead only to compensate for gravity in straight and level flight.
Almost all of this can be accounted for with the limitation that you have to make the sight for a set wingspan. As it is with the icons, you have much more reliable ranging system than the sight would be. And you can use the ".target" command off-line to check for bullet drop at your selected convergence (and then modify the sight bitmap if necessary).
So with it's limited usability and not really addressing any current limitation, I see little need for HTC to spend development time on it. But who knows, they may think it's worthwhile, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
-
I have a question: does AH convergence take into account bullet drop or not? (i.e. if I set the convergence for a long distance does it cause the guns to fire slightly upward so the bullet drops back down to the sight point at the convergence range?)
-
I have a question: does AH convergence take into account bullet drop or not? (i.e. if I set the convergence for a long distance does it cause the guns to fire slightly upward so the bullet drops back down to the sight point at the convergence range?)
Yes it does
-
I don't think it does, as an example here are two images of the 190A-8 with 4 20mm cannons.
For both tests the plane was on auto-pilot at 1000 feet and 350mph TAS. I tried to fire the same 1 second burst for both tests.
The first one the convergence is set to 650 yards and the .target command is set to 650.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/190A8-650.jpg)
In the next test the convergence is set to 275 yards and the .target command is set to 275.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/190A8-275.jpg)
I may be wrong so if there's some other explanation I'm all ears.
[EDIT] It may have to do with the mechanical limit on how far the guns could be set for convergence. But that shouldn't be an issue on the 190A-8.
-
Baumer, try that same test flying inverted. Then tell me there is no vertical coefficient to convergence. :)
-
interesting, so the hangar convergence settings only tweak the guns horizontally, not vertically. this means that for hub mounted guns the convergence setting makes no differenceat all.
-
Great job Baumer and devs! While we're at it, maybe you guys could figure out how to make the sights adjustable for target size, ie. being able to adjust base range/wingspan setting so we know what 200 yds looks like from any target, not just fighters. Range icons are for kids :devil
Gunsights are just a BMP image file. To make sights adjustable for wingspan and range--if appropriate (AFAIK the US Mk.8 couldn't be adjusted like this)--would require a fundamental revision in how sights are handled (not all sights were "just" made larger or smaller based on target wingspan. As Baumer indicated, the horizontal bar on the Barr and Stroud GM2/MkII changed size or position, but it sounds like the ring stayed the same).
Now if HTC were to eliminate custom gunsights and set all aircraft to use their HISTORICAL sight (something that I've WANTED to see for immersion) it would be possible to introduce things like this. Heck, you could then even give those Pony drivers with their K-14s their LCOS, assuming they want to try toying with that entire labyrinthine process.
It's something I'd certainly love to see, but would take a LOT more work to implement than what I understand is being done to correct the sight scaling now.
-
I know what you're getting at Ghosth but I cant use auto-pilot inverted, and I don't trust my hand fling skills enough to us that as a definitive test.
-
I know what you're getting at Ghosth but I cant use auto-pilot inverted, and I don't trust my hand fling skills enough to us that as a definitive test.
OK use a p38 set convergence to 200 and set target to 650. :old:
Edit: better yet use a p-39 and use cannon only... you'll see the diff.
-
Edit: better yet use a p-39 and use cannon only... you'll see the diff.
OK. I did that. The main thing I learned is that the dispersion on the P39 cannon is dreadful. However, sitting on the runway with .target 300, a convergence of 150 hits lower than a convergence of 650. (Of course it hits way at the top of the .target because the plane is pointing uphill a bit.) So it appears that convergence does change vertical as well as horizontal. (The dispersion is so bad, however, that the two patterns overlap.)
-
ok tested and they do converge vert too. the 650 yd 190 shot above must be because the drop is so bad at 650 the guns cant be adjusted up that far I guess.
-
ok tested and they do converge vert too. the 650 yd 190 shot above must be because the drop is so bad at 650 the guns cant be adjusted up that far I guess.
If you play with it long enough you will find that it will be on at 2 diff points... depending on convergence and ballistics.
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/arc.jpg?t=1278873048)
oooh and try it in opposite. Pull convergence all the way in and move target out 100 at a time.
-
.50's and .30's are the hardest to see, because they shoot so flat. The difference vertically is less than the convergence cone.
-
If you play with it long enough you will find that it will be on at 2 diff points... depending on convergence and ballistics.
sure, but im assuming baumer had the convergence and target distance the same, so the rounds should centre on the pipper (not the case in the 1st 190 d650 screenie where they are lower) :headscratch:
-
understand what you are saying Bronk, if you look at this chart for the 190A-8 you will see that ballistic arc for the inboard 20mm's should be at the sight line at 550m (601 yards).
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/Fw190A-8%20R-1%20Convergence%20Chart.JPG)
so (in theory) if you set the convergence to 600 yards then you should get a good group in the gun-sight plane with a .target command at 600. However, in practice the pattern seems to be below the gun sight plane. Not enough of a major error in my opinion, but when ever I make a custom sight with a long convergence I always run tests to see where it hits.
This test with the convergence (and target) set to 600 yards shows a clear pattern of hits below the sight plane.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/190A8-600a.jpg)
Now with the convergence (and target again) set to 200 yards this shows better distribution above and below the sight plane.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/190A8-200a.jpg)
[NOTE:] both tests were flown on auto-pilot at 1000 feet and 335mph TAS.
Now I did the test with the P-39Q in a similar manner and got different results. The long range shots showed a consistent spread around the convergence point, so it appears that accurate convergence may be dependent on the specific aircraft model.
So the answer to the initial question may be yes, the important factor to remember is, test the sight with the .target command, to ensure the sight functions as expected.
-
Now after reading how the test was done i tried one of my own but with the Mk9 Spit.
Convergence was set to the closest at 150 yard's at a height of 2200. And the results are pretty diffrent to the Fw 190 and i believe that HTC may have left out a certain factor in the Fw190. the 190's cannons are not firing from the same height on the airframe as the machine-guns!!!! So maybe HTC has not alined the cannons slightly up ward's to converge at the same point as the machine gun's. Cos as in the test with the Spit 9 i got no indication of hits below the gun sight just a good old consistant group of shot's on target. But i did fire from the Zoomed in view and the normal view to eliminate any enforceable variables and both tests were almost equal in results.
(http://file:///C:/Users/Bullet%20aka%20Mike/Pictures/Ace's%20Screen%20Shot's/ahss14.jpg)
(http://file:///C:/Users/Bullet%20aka%20Mike/Pictures/Ace's%20Screen%20Shot's/ahss17.jpg)
-
the 190's cannons are not firing from the same height on the airframe as the machine-guns!!!!
they shouldnt be - the mgs are on the engine cowling just under the sight line, the cannon are in the wing root way below that.
but that shouldnt make a difference, at convergence distance all of the rounds should hit the sight line (or disperse around it)
-
they shouldnt be - the mgs are on the engine cowling just under the sight line, the cannon are in the wing root way below that.
but that shouldnt make a difference, at convergence distance all of the rounds should hit the sight line (or disperse around it)
yeh but we dont know how they modeled it do we if it was modeled with the cannons elevated slightly up to meet the Machine guns on their convergence then it is possible that is what is creating the clear sign of hit's well bellow the gun sight whitch we can all agree these shots would never go anywhere near the target plane .
-
turn your tracers on, you can see where the rounds are coming from.
-
turn your tracers on, you can see where the rounds are coming from.
My Tracers where on :)
-
maybe this has already been mentioned....
.30 cal , .50 cal, even 20 mm hspanos have a flater trajectory and more "umphh" meaning they have less drop
the heavier the cannon the more the pronounced drop the further out...... even if convergence is set say all to 350, 400, 500 or 600 etc... on a P-38 one will notice the 20 mm willl hit the target slightly lower than the .50 cals do...... at least this has been my experience when testing
I also used to use Auto angle instead of auto level when testing ( Ren taught me this like 8 years ago or 7 I forget???? ) that with his theory of using the Auto angle ( Shift X ) instead of auto level ( X ), while holding the bore site center directly on the bullseye of the target and engaging the auto feature, showed a truer test.... I forget now though if that was true to fact or not but just a myth, I only remember the conversation/discussion over the matter someodd 7 or 8 years ago........
I do know back in AH1 and at the beginning of AH2 ( during AH 2 Beta ) that HTC introduced the spiraling/swuirlling gun dispersion <----> bullet leaving the end of the barrel and this in itself played an important effect/or part on where a bullets trajectory went....... I may be wrong though..... it has been a long while since I have run any convergence/trajectory tests in the different planes or gun packages...
if anything, I do not want to mislead anyone...... just trying to recall from memory here...
-
maybe this has already been mentioned....
.30 cal , .50 cal, even 20 mm hspanos have a flater trajectory and more "umphh" meaning they have less drop
the heavier the cannon the more the pronounced drop the further out...... even if convergence is set say all to 350, 400, 500 or 600 etc... on a P-38 one will notice the 20 mm willl hit the target slightly lower than the .50 cals do...... at least this has been my experience when testing
I also used to use Auto angle instead of auto level when testing ( Ren taught me this like 8 years ago or 7 I forget???? ) that with his theory of using the Auto angle ( Shift X ) instead of auto level ( X ), while holding the bore site center directly on the bullseye of the target and engaging the auto feature, showed a truer test.... I forget now though if that was true to fact or not but just a myth, I only remember the conversation/discussion over the matter someodd 7 or 8 years ago........
I do know back in AH1 and at the beginning of AH2 ( during AH 2 Beta ) that HTC introduced the spiraling/swuirlling gun dispersion <----> bullet leaving the end of the barrel and this in itself played an important effect/or part on where a bullets trajectory went....... I may be wrong though..... it has been a long while since I have run any convergence/trajectory tests in the different planes or gun packages...
if anything, I do not want to mislead anyone...... just trying to recall from memory here...
it sounds astho you may have something there TequilaChaser we do have to remember that even in a straight line what with Gravity at 1.5 G's ( i think it is ) a heavy caliber and its weight would drop over a certain distance.
as the force and weight of gravity would couse the bullet to travel downwards after it looses it's terminal velosity speed ( i think thats the right word ) We have to remember that even in straight and level flight with a target at say 300 yards ( perfect convergence point ) we still have to have our sight's about 1-2 mil's above our intended target.
A nice example below but a glider is used as the example sorry. ( oh and some people will also say the curviture of the earth has to be taken in to affect but i say WHAT :headscratch: :headscratch: :confused: :confused: )
I.e Altho its totaly different but a good example a Glider flying at a speed of 65 knots and for every 1 km traveled it will loose 150 feet in height say for example.
-
so much wrong there I dont know where to start.
with Gravity at 1.5 G's ( i think it is )
:huh :headscratch:
-
so much wrong there I dont know where to start.
:huh :headscratch:
Yes rtholmes we all live with a certain amount of gforce due to the earth's rotation it stops us all floating off the earth and in to space. you never feel it as your body is used to it from Day 1 :) Don't ask me how much it is tho i cant remember.
-
so much wrong there I dont know where to start.
:huh :headscratch:
No doubt... :lol It's astounding how much he gets wrong in a single post.
-
See Rule #4
-
once again all wrong. how about you piss off to wikipedia and look up Isaac Newton. then read the stuff about gravitation. then check out his laws of motion. and FYI gravity is ... 1G.
on a P-38 one will notice the 20 mm willl hit the target slightly lower than the .50 cals do
ok I'm confused again - does hangar convergence setting harmonise in the vertical plane , or only in the horizontal? I always assumed that its both. baumers 190 screenies and TC's experience suggest it doesnt, at least consistently. or is this just testing errors?
-
Yes rtholmes we all live with a certain amount of gforce due to the earth's rotation it stops us all floating off the earth and in to space. you never feel it as your body is used to it from Day 1 :) Don't ask me how much it is tho i cant remember.
'G's measure the acceleration forces on objects relative to earths gravitational force... So the earths gravitational force is... 1G
-
Well it would be 1g standing on the ground, it would also be 1g in straight and level flight (with zero acceleration) so that's not it.
As for TC's point about auto-angle vs. auto-speed I'll have to think about that one. There are a few other aspects I want to mull over and research as they relate to ballistics and convergence settings as well. So there will be more to discuss.
-
once again all wrong. how about you piss off to wikipedia and look up Isaac Newton. then read the stuff about gravitation. then check out his laws of motion. and FYI gravity is ... 1G.
ok I'm confused again - does hangar convergence setting harmonise in the vertical plane , or only in the horizontal? I always assumed that its both. baumers 190 screenies and TC's experience suggest it doesnt, at least consistently. or is this just testing errors?
Ahem you will notice that after i said 1.5g in brackets i said i think it is so i wasnt totaly sure and it was gyrene81 i told to piss off he has followed me through the forums saying im wrong and never proved it as he dosn't know him self.
-
bullet if you think that gravity is 1.5G, then the problems here are going to go waaaay over your head. you need to understand the basics before applying those to more complex problems. take my advice and check out Newton :aok
As for TC's point about auto-angle vs. auto-speed I'll have to think about that one.
auto angle level, then elevator trim to put the pipper in the centre of the target might be best. then you got the problem that you're in a slow descent so the target will be lower when the rounds hit it than when they leave the barrel.
basically this is going to be almost impossible to test accurately because the motion vector isnt the same as the sight line. the answers in the coad (hint hint ;))
-
Ahem you will notice that after i said 1.5g in brackets i said i think it is so i wasnt totaly sure and it was gyrene81 i told to piss off he has followed me through the forums saying im wrong and never proved it as he dosn't know him self.
LMAO...I haven't followed you through anything. I'm just astounded at how absolutely without a clue an "air frames engineer" can be about so much.
You should really take the advice RTHolmes gave you about Newton, make it easy on yourself and just google earth gravity. Then take the information myself and others posted in the 30mm cannon discussion and look up the bullet trajectory calculator. All you need to do it plug in the correct numbers and you will find out how much a cannon or machine gun round will drop along the horizontal plane within whatever ranges you want to calculate. Very easy and you will look much less foolish.
-
auto angle level, then elevator trim to put the pipper in the centre of the target might be best. then you got the problem that you're in a slow descent so the target will be lower when the rounds hit it than when they leave the barrel.
basically this is going to be almost impossible to test accurately because the motion vector isnt the same as the sight line. the answers in the coad (hint hint ;))
the first underlined part, I agree got to hold center of piper in the center of target before hitting Shift X ( Auto Angle ) but like I posted, that was a good handful of years ago, and I will not claim it to be better or worse tru or a myth, was just throwing it out there verse auto pilot ( X )
I love the 2nd underlined quoted part.....
as for testing all of these different guns & trajectory, convergence, etc.... Speed will play a part in every aspect...... is why I like when Baumer was posting the speeds he was at when firing at the Target...... to me this is very important, and the trajectory will ( should ) change through out the speed range example ( 125 IAS,, then 175 IAS, then 225 IAS, etc.up to 350 IAS ) but I have not seen anyone take testing that far into the matter in aces high though, but I trust HTC has coad'ed it to be in effect......
-
Another fact that some people seem to forget is take the amount of space in the wing of the spitfire for example. now to fit the .303 machine guns especially the 2 machine guns in the outer part of the wing the .303 had to be modified. and to make it fit the barrel length had to shortened thus what happen's when you shorten the barrel length, you can decrease the effective range of the weapon. Now i believe to compinsate for that the inside of the barrel i.e the groove was how to put it tightened to improve the velocity of the bullet to bring it almost back to normal.
Now given a couple of days i may be able to back this up as i will have to dig out the info from a source i collected in the 80's and 90's called airplane magizine. its a collection of magizines with Data and spec's on every aircraft built from 1930 to 1999. so please do bear with me.
thankyou
-
Looking at how much room there is for an M2, granted in the root of an E wing, I doubt they had any trouble fitting in the M1919s even in the outermost positions.
(http://spitfiresite.com/uploaded_images/gun-installation-e-wing-2.jpg)
-
Another fact that some people seem to forget is take the amount of space in the wing of the spitfire for example. now to fit the .303 machine guns especially the 2 machine guns in the outer part of the wing the .303 had to be modified and to make it fit the barrel length had to shortened
Um, I'm afraid not.
Spitfire Mk Ia wing diagram:
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html
The .303s were not cut down in any way to fit into the Spitfire wing.
-
Um, I'm afraid not.
Spitfire Mk Ia wing diagram:
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html
The .303s were not cut down in any way to fit into the Spitfire wing.
Not by mutch but if you look closley 2 of the .303's are shorter due to the area they are in for what can only be speculated as this diagram only shows the Guns wheel bay and structure. aha just re looked at that diagram look at the ammo storage in the wing you will find 2 of the guns are shorter. by a guess of up 2 3 inches :)
good find on that tho :aok
-
Looking at how much room there is for an M2, granted in the root of an E wing, I doubt they had any trouble fitting in the M1919s even in the outermost positions.
(http://spitfiresite.com/uploaded_images/gun-installation-e-wing-2.jpg)
with the mk 14 and above there was room as your diagram ilistrate's but as the next one shows the .303 guns are offset forward and back to make room for the ammo box's.
-
Not by mutch but if you look closley 2 of the .303's are shorter due to the area they are in for what can only be speculated as this diagram only shows the Guns wheel bay and structure.
Not by mutch but if you look closley 2 of the .303's are shorter due to the area they are in for what can only be speculated as this diagram only shows the Guns wheel bay and structure. aha just re looked at that diagram look at the ammo storage in the wing you will find 2 of the guns are shorter. by a guess of up 2 3 inches :)
with the mk 14 and above there was room as your diagram ilistrate's but as the next one shows the .303 guns are offset forward and back to make room for the ammo box's.
First you say they were shortened then you say they were offset...which is it?
The Mk 14 Spitfire didn't have wings that were wider than a Spit 1, you should have looked at and read all of the pages in that link from Jabberwock.
No, the guns weren't shortened, nor was the rifling or "groove" as you put it, modified to compensate for shortened barrels. Those guns were purpose built off the Browning U.S. AN M2 .30 caliber, by Vickers Armstrong company specifically for use in aircraft, and they are placed in the wing in a staggered pattern.
-
First you say they were shortened then you say they were offset...which is it?
The Mk 14 Spitfire didn't have wings that were wider than a Spit 1, you should have looked at and read all of the pages in that link from Jabberwock.
No, the guns weren't shortened, nor was the rifling or "groove" as you put it, modified to compensate for shortened barrels. Those guns were purpose built off the Browning U.S. AN M2 .30 caliber, by Vickers Armstrong company specifically for use in aircraft, and they are placed in the wing in a staggered pattern.
Ok but let's dig beeper in to this im still trying to find some info that i have in the attic ~( there's 24 years of junk up there so bear with me )
They do appear to be offset but remember to offset them the barrel would have to be shortened on two of them other wise the Spit mk 1 would have two barrel's pointing out of the wing's and we all know that it dosnt have that do's it ?? :)
-
no need to dig deeper, jabberwock has done it already. you just need to look at what he posted for you:
Spitfire Mk Ia wing diagram:
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html
The .303s were not cut down in any way to fit into the Spitfire wing.
-
Ahhemm would you also like information like this to be supplied. :)
(http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/9b29b6432ce13dcf2867b790e385c4126g.jpg)
-
AHA or how about this.
(http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/b7dc318e677fc3643a60ea03e4f5f0026g.jpg)
-
Ok not quite the gunnery info i was hopeing for as its picture sreads out to be bigger than A3 size of paper ulp and my scanners no that big :salute :aok
-
ok I give up.
-
Bullet drop due to convergence settings... Check out this thread, especially the last few posts. I also explain an easy method to get reliable, repeatable results...
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,291146.0.html
Bullet drop is greatly effected by convergence, much more-so with wing-mounted guns than with nose-mounted.
-
You've got a magic touch, Baumer, I mentioned this way back when the Hogs got updated and not a word. Think you can convince Hitech to give us that lighter land-based FG-1A? ;-)
I remember that!
Regardless of how/who, it's nice to see it getting revised/corrected.
(Even though I probably won't see it in game, since I just use a lil' dot).
-
Bye Bye
-
Ahhemm would you also like information like this to be supplied. :)
(http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/9b29b6432ce13dcf2867b790e385c4126g.jpg)
Out of curiosity, what does that prove? It doesn't say anything about the MG configuration.
That's a compilation either way, loses to period documentation every time.
You can see in this illustration that all the wing guns are within one pixel of eachother, with the outermost being the longest. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, in the real installation there was no difference between the length of the wing guns.
(http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/AK_Comrade/SpitIwingguns.png)
-
Ok not quite the gunnery info i was hopeing for as its picture sreads out to be bigger than A3 size of paper ulp and my scanners no that big :salute :aok
read this but i have been in contact with HTC and am awaiting a reply. as i believe that 80% of the info i have on these plane's can help them to improve on performance and what not. And let them bring in a lot more varients of the Spit F6F F4F F4U and the Beufighter. :)
-
[sarcasm]
Really! All they needed was more info so we'd get more Spits/F6F/F4F/F4U variants and the Beaufighter. Dang if only Guppy knew that way back when.
[/sarcasm]
This really is a pointless diversion of the topic. The Spitfires have no issue with vertical convergence out to the max 650 yards, regardless of which model or gun package you use. If you feel that there is a problem I suggest researching it first and THEN posting your supporting documents.
-
OK OK Every one lets start again Boumer i dont know if this will help you but here if you read this you may be able to work out your equasions to the T Bud
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/brow303-b.jpg&imgrefurl=http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-pe.html&h=333&w=320&sz=46&tbnid=GFEBrhpyGcEbTM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=114&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBrowning%2B.303&hl=en&usg=__Y82-Z5tgZAGqTlXXocMYOZXlzPI=&sa=X&ei=c7w8TPyGKZCJ4QaOyfjyCQ&ved=0CB8Q9QEwAw
-
[sarcasm]
Really! All they needed was more info so we'd get more Spits/F6F/F4F/F4U variants and the Beaufighter. Dang if only Guppy knew that way back when.
[/sarcasm]
This really is a pointless diversion of the topic. The Spitfires have no issue with vertical convergence out to the max 650 yards, regardless of which model or gun package you use. If you feel that there is a problem I suggest researching it first and THEN posting your supporting documents.
I never said there was a problem sorry if it sounded that way i have dislexia and i cant put from brain to paper very well had it since my car accident 3 years ago. and the same goe's for reading and memory storage of what i have read i can remember some but not all of it.
-
Little test I did to check out vertical harmonization. Convergence was 400 I think ( :rolleyes: always good to check all the variables before you start testing :lol ).
First thing I did was line up and do the 20yd test on auto-level, then I just left the plane on auto level, not disturbing the flight path, and did about a 1 second burst at 200 yd intervals. Red dot is about the center of the group. Interesting results...
(http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/AK_Comrade/Fw190A8test.png)
-
Baumer: It's finish, but that was way more of a PITA then I thought it was going to be.
Ya ow me a beer.
HiTech
-
:D :aok
-
Baumer: It's finish, but that was way more of a PITA then I thought it was going to be.
Ya ow me a beer.
HiTech
Thank you Hitech and the rest of HTC, sorry it turned out to be a PITA. So do you want the Beer (or Scotch) now, or at the CON? And yes I won't forget to get Sudz a veggie pizza next time.
<S> Baumer
-
Little test I did to check out vertical harmonization. Convergence was 400 I think ( :rolleyes: always good to check all the variables before you start testing :lol ).
First thing I did was line up and do the 20yd test on auto-level, then I just left the plane on auto level, not disturbing the flight path, and did about a 1 second burst at 200 yd intervals. Red dot is about the center of the group. Interesting results...
(http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/AK_Comrade/Fw190A8test.png)
Wow Motherland, that is definitely cool...shows an arching bullet trajectory. I don't think that's a 400 yd convergence though, looks like it could be a bit higher.
-
Baumer: It's finish, but that was way more of a PITA then I thought it was going to be.
Ya ow me a beer.
HiTech
A Heart Felt Thank You to hitech & Company......
as well Thank You to Baumer for bringing this issue in to light with factual data
-
Please Santa Claus I hope you take this whole thread and stick it in the AHWiki.
-
I'll be working on the Wiki shortly buster I promise. I am still gathering more info, and have a lot to go over with people like TC, AKDogg, Wmaker ect. But it will be posted with plenty of WW2 training documents for fighter and bomber gunnery.
-
Santa Claus you better be delivering a ton of whatever makes Mr. Baumer happy this Christmass.
I have a Klingon Battel Cruiser with Santa seeking photon torpedo's...... :devil
-
Baumer: It's finish, but that was way more of a PITA then I thought it was going to be.
Ya ow me a beer.
HiTech
Just a beer? You're letting Baumer off light.
ack-ack
-
Thank you Hitech and the rest of HTC, sorry it turned out to be a PITA. So do you want the Beer (or Scotch) now, or at the CON? And yes I won't forget to get Sudz a veggie pizza next time.
<S> Baumer
If he want's Scotch whiskey im the man to get it i can you nice bottle of 50 year old Knokanda Malt whiskey very nice was drinking some over the weekend :) :salute
-
If he want's Scotch whiskey im the man to get it i can you nice bottle of 50 year old Knokanda Malt whiskey very nice was drinking some over the weekend :) :salute
A few of those might get you a Mk XII spit.
-
Baumer,
Actually, if you use the correct gunsight for the F4U (US Mk.8, the version in which the cross extends past the ring) the sight is HALF the size it should be. I analyzed this in GREAT detail in a thread a while back, based on calculations using the Dora. But here's some comparison pics:
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Misc/Sights.png)
Here's both versions of the Mk.8 sight that we have. Both were shots were taken at default head position, and it's the one on the right (the full cross) that you want to look at (incidentally, this is also the gunsight used by the F6F-5 and FM-2).
There are three rings on the sight: 25mil inner, 50mil middle, and 100mil outer. Per the description of the sight, with a 100mil calibration a target with a 30-foot wingspan should have its wingtips touching the middle (50mil) at a range of 200 yards. The Dora has a wingspan of 39ft, so at the time I did my calculations was the closest of the drones I could use for my test.
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Misc/DoraSight200.png)
Here is the Dora with the full Mk.8 sight at default head position. Note that at 200 yards the Dora's wingspan fills the OUTER ring. This is incorrect per the above description, as it should be using the middle ring instead.
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Misc/SightsAdjusted.png)
Here's the sight on the right from the first image adjusted to what it SHOULD look like based on calculations I did using the Dora.
In order to account for the discrepancy in how ranges are displayed, I also independently confirmed the scaling issue using the .target command. I spawned a Dora and set .target to absolute minimum range, then took an external screenshot. I then re-upped in a Hog and compared how it looked when I set .target to 200yds, confirming that my above test results were correct.
HT,
Urchin is correct, the issue isn't the dimensions of the BMP file, it's how the gunsight is "modeled" in the aircraft itself. I've already tried changing the size of the gunsight using the BMP file, but it couldn't make the scaling any bigger (I can only make it smaller, or give it a lower resolution).
that last F4U gunsight were u get it??? ive never seen one so clear (not hazy etc.)
-
that last F4U gunsight were u get it??? ive never seen one so clear (not hazy etc.)
I made it myself. I'll be going back and doing some tweaks (Needs to be more reddish orange and more glowy) sometime.
-
Baumer,
There are three rings on the sight: 25mil inner, 50mil middle, and 100mil outer. Per the description of the sight, with a 100mil calibration a target with a 30-foot wingspan should have its wingtips touching the middle (50mil) at a range of 200 yards. The Dora has a wingspan of 39ft, so at the time I did my calculations was the closest of the drones I could use for my test.
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Misc/DoraSight200.png)
Here is the Dora with the full Mk.8 sight at default head position. Note that at 200 yards the Dora's wingspan fills the OUTER ring. This is incorrect per the above description, as it should be using the middle ring instead.
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Misc/SightsAdjusted.png)
It is interesting to know that the USN/USMC used 25, 50, 100 mil rings ( or rads ) to where the USAAR used 35, 70, 105 mil on their 3 ring iron sights & optical sights........ one would assume that since all Air Corps of the US Military used the same .30 cal M1/M2, .50 cal M2 etc... that they would use the same type of sight measuring distances......even though those sights have changed from like the 6 version, 8 version, 9 version, 14 etc..... ( can go into specific sight model #/names if needed just have to dig thru some pages for correct nomenclature)
(rad is 1/2 the width of a ring ) ( rad{s} would help pilots & Gunners both, determine how much lead to allow, as well as help determine how far away the enemy plane actually was, from just about any angle...... and which way to allow for lead ( what direction )
Now if HTC ( Aces High ) scales ( has already scaled ) the optical & iron sights to historical measurements, then it would open a whole new way of learning / teaching / practicing how to figure out Fighter/Gunner gunnery..... and for those who take this all in and study it, I would imagine that their hit percentages would increase a good margin.....
I welcome any corrections on anything I may have mis posted above......
can wait to see all this on the AHwiki...... ( not this thread, but what Baumer puts on the AHwiki :aok )
-
Can anyone Email me some instructions on how to make a custom gun sight im getting intrested in making one now
My Email is bullitvi@gmail.com
Thanks :salute :salute
-
A few of those might get you a Mk XII spit.
I will settle for them to give us the Mk VIII with these wing type option's
Spitfire MkVIII : definitive fighter with 2 stage Merlin 61, 63, 66, or 70 engine and the unpressurised; LF , F or HF wigns; 'B', 'C', or E armament ( total 5,665 )
-
How To Make A Gunsight.
1. Open a new bitmap in your favorite art program.
2. 256x256 pixles, 8bit bitmap. Save it to your "Sights" folder in the game install. There is no naming convention just .bmp extension.
3. Fill it first with black.
4. Select a line tool at one pixle width and draw an X from corner to corner to get your center and grid.
5. Add all the circles, dots, lines hashes whatever makes you happy in whatever color works for your eyes.
6. Clean up the remenants of the original X and test it offline against the drones.
7. Tweek as you need to. You can use an effects tool like a gaussian blur to make it sexy.
It is this simple.
Open a few default gunsights in an art program to get a feel for the subject matter.
-
ah cool thanks you think i be better waiting till HTC have updated the gun sights tho ????
-
ah cool thanks you think i be better waiting till HTC have updated the gun sights tho ????
Yes
-
Sorry.
I forgot about the possibilty that the update will change the pixel dimensions for the gunsight mask. We won't know until the new sights are released what the bitmap size will be persuant to HiTech's revamping.
You can still use these directions with the current version of the game. :)
-
Well the sight bitmap will still be 256x256 max. The sight bitmap will be 128 Mils across, however there may be some sights that are mechanically smaller, so they will not show the full 128 Mil bitmap as I understand it.
-
Excellent work Baumer. :cheers:
-
Well the sight bitmap will still be 256x256 max. The sight bitmap will be 128 Mils across, however there may be some sights that are mechanically smaller, so they will not show the full 128 Mil bitmap as I understand it.
On small sights it will also change if you move your head closer, Now no mater where you head is, the bitmap will be 128 mills.
-
Nice work guys, i have a headache after reading some of it but nice work!
-
I've made a new version of the US Mk.VIII gunsight:
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/Media/Sights/US_Mk.VIII_2.png)
This should be VERY accurate. The large ring is 100mil, the middle at 50. I've double checked and confirmed the hash marks are spaced at 5mil intervals.
I wish I thought to check the size before HT requested how big to make the max sight picture, as the Mk.VIII is a 150mil sight. I DID do a version that's the full sight, if anyone wants it, although that won't be quite as accurate. I suppose it's too late to request the size be increased from 128mil....
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/Media/Sights/US_Mk.VIII.png)
-
I didn't see it but on elevation with convergance.
AH sets the elevation of the guns to cross the slight line at the convergence point.
But it does convergence and elevation calculations from a stationary plane at sea level.
As you change elevations and speeds the ballistics will change. And hence can hit high or low at convergence distance.
HiTech
-
Here is a chart that will help explain using the rings to estimate lead. Note this is for a target at 200mph as I post in the Wiki this will be more detailed.
Be sure to right click on the image and select "view image" to see it at it's full size, to make it easier to read. This is from a post war fighter gunnery manual but it gets the point across well.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/4-7.jpg)
Saxman did you find any documentation that it's a 150 Mil sight? It would be great to know what the source is to help convince HTC to change it, but I suspect it will be 128 Mil for now.
-
HEHEHE i didnt find a thing apart from the acctual power and so on so for every machine gun used in WW2 lol :lol me a bit thick at the Moment :lol :rofl :rofl
:salute :salute
-
Here is a chart that will help explain using the rings to estimate lead. Note this is for a target at 200mph as I post in the Wiki this will be more detailed.
Be sure to right click on the image and select "view image" to see it at it's full size, to make it easier to read. This is from a post war fighter gunnery manual but it gets the point across well.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/SightQuestion/4-7.jpg)
Saxman did you find any documentation that it's a 150 Mil sight? It would be great to know what the source is to help convince HTC to change it, but I suspect it will be 128 Mil for now.
Baumer,
You can tell from the hash marks:
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/Media/Sights/US_Mk.VIII.png)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3124/2606882808_a9c70d8c42.jpg)
If the outer ring is at 100 mil, that means Each hash is at 5mil intervals. If you count in 5mil increments from the pipper, you have have rings at 25 and 50mil radius (with diameters of 50mil and 100mil rings, respectively). The bottom hash is at 75mil from the pipper, for a diameter of 150mil. Even though there's not a corresponding ring, the diameter of the full Mk.VIII sight is still 150mil (the diagonal lines on the sight also fit to a 150mil ring).
So maybe 256mil max might have been a better choice, that way a 256x256bmp would give 1px/mil
-
AH sets the elevation of the guns to cross the slight line at the convergence point.
But it does convergence and elevation calculations from a stationary plane at sea level.
As you change elevations and speeds the ballistics will change. And hence can hit high or low at convergence distance.
finally an explanation that makes sense! ty :aok
-
I'm sorry but I think HTC will need something more than a photo of a sight at the Air Force Museum to prove that you would see the full 150 Mil on a MkVIII. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that we need to find better documented evidence to support it. BTW I like how the MkVIII is setup at the P-47 display, I wonder if Stoney or any of the other Jug experts can elaborate on which 47's used the MkVIII sight?
-
I'm sorry but I think HTC will need something more than a photo of a sight at the Air Force Museum to prove that you would see the full 150 Mil on a MkVIII. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that we need to find better documented evidence to support it.
When did this become Wikipedia? We've already established the rings on the Mk.VIII are at 50 and 100mil diameter. It's just simple math anyone (I would assume) can do to determine at what intervals the hash marks are (5mil) and that the bottom hash mark is at a radius of 75mil (150mil diameter). And that picture IS significant evidence because it's an actual gunsight, in an actual plane, showing that 150mil mark.
And didn't we establish there's a difference between the full sight picture vs. the MECHANICAL sight picture? All I'm saying is to further increase the FULL sight picture, and let the mechanical sight picture take care of the rest like apparently is already going to happen.
Well the sight bitmap will still be 256x256 max. The sight bitmap will be 128 Mils across, however there may be some sights that are mechanically smaller, so they will not show the full 128 Mil bitmap as I understand it.
-
Well you carry on then, since you know best how to get HTC to make changes.
Do you know what specific model of MkVIII that is? Do you know specifically what plane it was built for?
Yes the math is easy to do now that it's been thoroughly discussed, but that doesn't mean that HTC doesn't need more documentation for the specific implementation.
I have no idea if HTC will increase the sight for you or not, but I do know what is typically needed to show HTC that there's an issue that needs to be addressed. All I'm saying is that the image you provided is less documentation than I think they will need.
But good luck anyways,
Baumer
-
Boumer would this help ????
Its some gun sight data i found bud :salute
http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_gunsights_adv.php
-
That's an interesting website I haven't see thanks Bullet. However I think it is a reference for tank and artillery sights, not aircraft sights but cool none the less.
-
Ok i keep on searching then :)
-
The point is if one sight is demonstrably larger than 128mil, (regardless of model, it's clear that there WAS a Mk.VIII sight that extended to 150mil) there might be others that were as well (IE, I think the Japanese Type 98 had a ring at 150-200mil. I'm trying to find the information on that one).
-
That's an interesting website I haven't see thanks Bullet. However I think it is a reference for tank and artillery sights, not aircraft sights but cool none the less.
As Baumer posted, Thanks Bullet, for that weblink
the below weblink , I like even better
http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/d_and_d.htm
is from the same website, but shows sources & statistics from all countrys
fighters, attack aircraft, bombers, artillery, Ground Vehicles, Warships, etc....
Information Source List for all data on this website:
http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_sources_adv.php
Thanks again Bullet
-
As Baumer posted, Thanks Bullet, for that weblink
the below weblink , I like even better
http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/d_and_d.htm
is from the same website, but shows sources & statistics from all countrys
fighters, attack aircraft, bombers, artillery, Ground Vehicles, Warships, etc....
Information Source List for all data on this website:
http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_sources_adv.php
Thanks again Bullet
Ah so i pointed you in the right direction then YYYYYYYYIIIIIIIIIIIPPPPPPPPEE EEEEEEE :rock :rofl :lol :salute
-
The point is if one sight is demonstrably larger than 128mil, (regardless of model, it's clear that there WAS a Mk.VIII sight that extended to 150mil) there might be others that were as well (IE, I think the Japanese Type 98 had a ring at 150-200mil. I'm trying to find the information on that one).
I thought That most Japanese sights where just 3 circles welded together with a horizontal and vertical line stuck on a wee pole outside the canopy till i flew a Zero in Ace's lol :lol :rofl
-
I didn't see it but on elevation with convergance.
AH sets the elevation of the guns to cross the slight line at the convergence point.
But it does convergence and elevation calculations from a stationary plane at sea level.
As you change elevations and speeds the ballistics will change. And hence can hit high or low at convergence distance.
HiTech
What an ellegant way to say gunnery ultimatly in AH2 is an artform mastered by experience.
-
Has anyone had any luck finding a resource describing the different reticules in detail? I've been trying Google and having almost no luck. Usually I just end up with reproductions, photos, or models of the gunsight itself, with no information on (or even pictures OF) the reticules.
I've seen information to suggest the Japanese Type 98 may have had rings out to 150 or 200mils, but can't find anything definitive to confirm.
Baumer, you mentioned having the data on the Revi 16b. How many mil across is the ring? 50mil? This is one of the few I've found reticules for, and it looks like the ring is about 1/3 the span of the entire reticule (the Revi 16b reticule had a VERY broad cross).
-
The Revi 16b works out to be 125 Mil and is the same for the other Revi versions. I'm still looking for sources on the Japanese sights as well. It really is unfortunate the Japanese destroyed so much documentation (especially about equipment) near the end of the war.
I am still looking, but I doubt I will find anything soon.
-
As Baumer posted, Thanks Bullet, for that weblink
the below weblink , I like even better
http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/d_and_d.htm
is from the same website, but shows sources & statistics from all countrys
fighters, attack aircraft, bombers, artillery, Ground Vehicles, Warships, etc....
Information Source List for all data on this website:
http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_sources_adv.php
Thanks again Bullet
Boumer tequilachaser investegated the post i put of that web sight and i do believe that there was some info on Japanese sights there. I will look and repost if successful
-
There is no information about aircraft sights that I could find. I have gone through the site but I couldn't find anything sorry.
-
There is no information about aircraft sights that I could find. I have gone through the site but I couldn't find anything sorry.
Yeah dam it appears to be mostly vechle and tanks BUMMER
-
I got this off a website and compiled them to these docs. Its 1 zip file with about 6-8 docs on all the gunsights.
http://www.arabian-knights.org/files/Dogg/Histgunsightdocs.zip
-
This website seems to have more data then any other about Japanese sights. I'm hoping to get in touch with the creator and see if he has more on the reticules.
http://sv06.wadax.ne.jp/~gunsight-jp/b/ (http://sv06.wadax.ne.jp/~gunsight-jp/b/)
They have some very nice 3D models as well, so there's plenty of eye candy to peruse.
Here's the right side of the Type 21 A6M 3D model. Notice the sight is modeled, I hope they have the reticule info.
(http://gunsight.jp/c/image2/zero21cockpit-02.jpg)
(http://gunsight.jp/c/image2/zero21cockpit-011.jpg)
-
That is the sight I made those docs from.
-
The Revi 16b works out to be 125 Mil and is the same for the other Revi versions. I'm still looking for sources on the Japanese sights as well. It really is unfortunate the Japanese destroyed so much documentation (especially about equipment) near the end of the war.
I am still looking, but I doubt I will find anything soon.
If the ring is 125mil, then based on the reticule I have the cross works out to just about ~220mil. So pretty clearly larger than 128mil. I'd REALLY like to find one where the actual rings exceed 128mil.
Regarding that website, I've already come across that one while trying to find details on the Type 98. Unfortunately, all it seems to have information on is which sight was used by which aircraft, I didn't see any information on the reticules.
-
Saxman I am trying to find the info to make sure all the sights work correctly. However this is not going to be a quick endeavor, nor does it mean that all sights will be made larger if we find an example where one is larger. Also during my conversations with Hitech it sounded like 128 Mil is also a good number to program for. If we find something that's larger it may not be an easy fix in the game. I don't know this for a fact, but it sounded that way.
Btw with a Revi you don't see the whole reticule at one time.
-
The Revi 16b works out to be 125 Mil and is the same for the other Revi versions. I'm still looking for sources on the Japanese sights as well. It really is unfortunate the Japanese destroyed so much documentation (especially about equipment) near the end of the war.
I am still looking, but I doubt I will find anything soon.
The Japanese destruction of their records is really frustrating, and not just from this hobby's viewpoint.
It vexes me greatly. Ah well.
-
It would help me to know exactly how HTC intends to handle the new mechanics.
I presume that the mechanical display limitation of the sight is going to be set for each aircraft individually accounting for the reflector size.
However is the max size (128mil) being set individually by aircraft, or will the maximum size be a global setting? If globally, (which seems to me the easiest) would setting the max size to 256mil really be much more difficult to program for? 256 is part of the whole powers of 2 thing that game developers love for graphics, and would seem to accommodate almost all sights (I REALLY don't expect to see any sights exceeding 250mil).
-
Eh boumer have you tried this i know its wikepedia but hey it looks good :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyro_gunsight
There's also this one :)
http://www.429sqn.ca/acmgs.htm
I like this one aswell Boumer :)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=160621&sid=51c60b7d43f1923c2bb9a94c598a6ff1
#
:salute :salute
-
It is really very simple I can choose any number for the max mills of the texture maps,it is no more then typing in 1 number, but the texture maps must all ways be a power of 2 in size. I.E. 128 256 512
So the reason I choose 128 is that it makes 1 or 2 pixels = 1 mill and hence easy to make correct size rings on the bit maps.
No mater how big the real gun sight is 128 mills is the same size on the screen if your head position is at the same distance from the sight. If the sight is to small you will not see the ring unless you move your head closer to the sight.
The FW's just make 128 mills with the head position at default.
HiTech
-
Thanks for the explanation.
So the reason I choose 128 is that it makes 1 or 2 pixels = 1 mill and hence easy to make correct size rings on the bit maps.
Which is why I'd suggest using 256.
The BMP files for reticules are already limited to a max of 256x256 as it is, and this would keep it as 1px = 1mil on all sizes (so 256x256, 128x128, and 64x64, etc. would all be 1px = 1mil) rather than 1px/mil at one size, (128) and 2px/mil with another (256).
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/Media/Sights/US_Mk.VIII.png)
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/Media/Sights/Revi16B.png)
(I did miscalculate the size of the Revi 16. The cross would actually be larger than 256mil, closer to 300. However I don't know if it would really be possible to increase the max size of reticules to 512mil unless the max size of the BMP file was upped as well).
-
64 2 mill = 1 pix
128 1 mill = 1 pix
256 0.5 mill = 1 pix
saxman quick math for 128 mills.
Just multiple sight width * 8 and that is how far you head must be away from the sight to get 128 mills edge to edge of the sight.
I.E. 4 " wide sight you head must be 32 " back for 128 mills on the edge of the sight.
HiTech
-
I have just found Alot of german gunsight material. Will post the files as soon as I get them all. They are all in pdf format. Only problem is I need a german translation,lol.
-
Here is the link to the PDF's. They are all zipped into 1 easy file. There about 12 files within the zip. Every document is in german from the WWII (original manuals).
www.arabian-knights.org/files/Dogg/Germangunsights.zip
Here is the link where I got them from. Also on this websight is anything u want to know about German stuff from WWII including v1 rockets, planes etc.. Alot of detailed original manuals etc.
http://deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv-englisch/dokumente/web/new%20site/frames2/Dokumente.htm
-
I know it doesn't provide much information on the size of the sight, but I did some close studying of the Type 98 in this vid Dogg linked:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXsVg8F91t8
There's five rings altogether, with a hash mark on the cross between each ring. The interval between each ring is the same, so if we can determine how many mils any given ring is across, that should get us the size of the entire sight. IE, if the inner ring is at 50mil, that means the others would be at 100, 150, 200 and 250, respectively.
-
That's a great find AKDogg, I've had that sight bookmarked for well over 2 years and never noticed that section. :(
Looking at those pdfs we can cross reference a lot of the info to the Japanese instrument website to find similarity's.
Speaking about translations I'm sure Wmaker or Snailman can help maybe? If not I'm sure some of the Jg11 guys can help as well.
-
Guys as long as we are on the subject of gunsights can we please have 2 different film recording options.
By that i mean No 1 is the normal film recording we have and 2 a separate film recording function for gun cam film that films like the real thing. And i know that the British Mk II sight had that capability from some of my research for this Topic.
http://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=11876&sid=cd27d2e4bc5d3b83228cf057139f7fd7
I mean it would be cool for Me even tho i can do it with out this capability but there are those who are in the game and just joining it who want to do films like this. So isn't it easier for all to just simplify it all to 2 different recording capabilities.
Thanks what ever the descion
BulletVI
PS you dont have to have them record in Black And White that can be added later just with the Sight visible :)
-
I made it myself. I'll be going back and doing some tweaks (Needs to be more reddish orange and more glowy) sometime.
cool :rock hey if u can (and dont mind) post a link to download the file or something for the gunsight?
-
Here is a doc on the San Giorgio tipo sight.
External circle diameter: 2x118= 236 mrad
Internal circle diameter: 2x60= 120 mrad
Distance between two consecutive dots: 28 mrad
These figures were clearly stated in the Official Gunsight Manual
(http://www.arabian-knights.org/files/Dogg/sangiogiotipo.bmp)
-
I read this thread, my head exploded.
-
cool :rock hey if u can (and dont mind) post a link to download the file or something for the gunsight?
You can grab it in the second post on Page 10 of this thread. Just save it as a BMP file. As of the way things are being set right now, you'll want to use the 128x128 image. I'm still hoping hitech could be convinced or bribed to use 256mil as the max, in which case the other image in that post would work.
-
I read this thread, my head exploded.
:rofl Yeah, that happened to me too. I understood the first 2 pages, I saw that hitech was changing the sights, and that was it for me.
-
Why are you guys talking about womens handbags? :rofl
Reticule = a woman's drawstring bag used especially as a carryall
Reticle = a grid or pattern placed in the eyepiece of an optical instrument, used to establish scale or position
-
Nice find AKDogg, can you post the document or a link by any chance?
Thanks
-
I don't have a link or the document. I got that from another forum that apparently a person (He actual is italian) has the manual and he posted that picture with the text stating the dimensions from the manual.
-
I don't have a link or the document. I got that from another forum that apparently a person (He actual is italian) has the manual and he posted that picture with the text stating the dimensions from the manual.
Ok, so if I'm reading that right, the outer ring is 236mil and the inner is 160?
If that's the case, then this is EXACTLY what I'm looking for: A gun sight in which the rings themselves (NOT the extended cross) exceeds the 128mil diameter hitech currently has set as the maximum. With the San Giorgo rings being confirmed larger than 128mil, the crosses for the Mk.VIII and Revi 16 being demonstrably larger, and what little information I've been able to dig up indicating the IJN Type 98 is larger as well, is this sufficient to justify increasing the max size to 256mil instead?
-
Ok, so if I'm reading that right, the outer ring is 236mil and the inner is 160?
If that's the case, then this is EXACTLY what I'm looking for: A gun sight in which the rings themselves (NOT the extended cross) exceeds the 128mil diameter hitech currently has set as the maximum. With the San Giorgo rings being confirmed larger than 128mil, the crosses for the Mk.VIII and Revi 16 being demonstrably larger, and what little information I've been able to dig up indicating the IJN Type 98 is larger as well, is this sufficient to justify increasing the max size to 256mil instead?
To answer your question, no it is not sufficient to justify increasing the size to 256 but it does put more weight in increasing the size.
But the point is moot, I have choosen to default the width to 128 and then if you wish a different mill width, you can just add a file in the sight directory xxxx.mil with the mill size in it to change the mill size for a given xxxx sight.
HiTech
-
To answer your question, no it is not sufficient to justify increasing the size to 256 but it does put more weight in increasing the size.
But the point is moot, I have choosen to default the width to 128 and then if you wish a different mill width, you can just add a file in the sight directory xxxx.mil with the mill size in it to change the mill size for a given xxxx sight.
HiTech
So for example hitech you say if the sight we use is 120mill then we can change that within the game by adding a file say 255.mill for example and then that sight is now set to 255mill.
Is there any instructions to follow as i may try it but not computer savvy :lol but instructions i can follow :aok
-
I read this thread, my head exploded.
Well, at least nothing important was hurt. :)
-
So for example hitech you say if the sight we use is 120mill then we can change that within the game by adding a file say 255.mill for example and then that sight is now set to 255mill.
Is there any instructions to follow as i may try it but not computer savvy :lol but instructions i can follow :aok
no
say you are using a sight p51d.bmp you would then add a file p51d.mil with 256 as the number on the first line.
HiTech
-
no
say you are using a sight p51d.bmp you would then add a file p51d.mil with 256 as the number on the first line.
HiTech
Ah i see sort of renaming it but would it be p51d256.mil or 256p51d.mil or p256d.mil Sorry to ask but if you dont ask the teatcher you never learn :) Thanks :)
-
To answer your question, no it is not sufficient to justify increasing the size to 256 but it does put more weight in increasing the size.
But the point is moot, I have choosen to default the width to 128 and then if you wish a different mill width, you can just add a file in the sight directory xxxx.mil with the mill size in it to change the mill size for a given xxxx sight.
HiTech
That is equally awesome, and a fair best of both worlds solution.
:aok
Bullet,
I think he's saying there will be a file called p51d.mil that you would open in Notepad or some other TXT editor, and add "256" to the first line of the file which tells it the gunsight would be 256mil across.
-
That is equally awesome, and a fair best of both worlds solution.
:aok
Bullet,
I think he's saying there will be a file called p51d.mil that you would open in Notepad or some other TXT editor, and add "256" to the first line of the file which tells it the gunsight would be 256mil across.
SORY still head scratching for me :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch:
-
There will be files in your Aces High\Sights folder named [Plane Name].mil (or you would need to create one).
To change the size of the gunsight for a particular plane, you would open (or create) it's particular .mil file. IE, to edit the size of the F4U-1A's sight, you would open F4U1A.MIL
In this text file, you would specify the size in mils you want the sight to be. IE, if I wanted to correct the Mk.VIII gunsight to 150 mil, I would add the number 150 to the first line of that text file. Save it, and load the game.
-
Ok i opened the p51d text doccument in notepad it reads
USAAFK14b.bmp
Ithe number i change the number 14 ????? :headscratch: :headscratch:
Dont worry not changed a thing :)
I just have .bmp file's and the text files ??
-
Bullet,
You're on the right track, but if I understand what hitech is saying it's not going to be the p51d.txt file that's currently in there. There's going to be ANOTHER file named p51d.mil. It doesn't exist yet, because this hasn't been implemented into the game yet.
Incidentally, I'm curious over how large of a file (in pixels) we'll be able to use now...
-
Incidentally, I'm curious over how large of a file (in pixels) we'll be able to use now...
I don't think we're talking about using a larger BMP file due to this :
To answer your question, no it is not sufficient to justify increasing the size to 256 but it does put more weight in increasing the size.
But the point is moot, I have choosen to default the width to 128 and then if you wish a different mill width, you can just add a file in the sight directory xxxx.mil with the mill size in it to change the mill size for a given xxxx sight.
I think we're just talking how to scale the existing BMP files. For instance, current BMP is 128x128. If we need a 200 mil ring, you'd set the p51d.mil file to 256, and make the ring inside the BMP 100 pixels wide.
-
Bullet,
You're on the right track, but if I understand what hitech is saying it's not going to be the p51d.txt file that's currently in there. There's going to be ANOTHER file named p51d.mil. It doesn't exist yet, because this hasn't been implemented into the game yet.
Incidentally, I'm curious over how large of a file (in pixels) we'll be able to use now...
AHHH i see it be when the new update for the sights is installed i gotcha that makes a lot of sense now CHEERS :aok
Hitech i not sucking up but keep up the brilliant work :) oh and may i ask what engine you got in the Mk9 spit ????
Is it the two stage merlin 61 or 63 or the 70 serie's just a queary as i was watching Spitfire ace the other day and the Spits owner asked the trainee to throttle back to 3600 rpm as thats what the cruising speed setting was. bit of a difference to my rpm gauge in the game !!!!!
im just wandering like as there was 3 different engine's available each one better than the previous i believe :) But i shall try and find more info on these type's of engine to back all this up :salute
-
Well, at least nothing important was hurt. :)
:lol
-
Knite,
Currently, the game allows BMP files for gunsights to be 256x256px. With the default setting of 128mil, this means a 256x256 gunsight has a resolution of 2px/mil.
I'm asking for clarification on whether BMP files larger than 256px will be allowed or whether that's going to remain the max size limit. hitech's post was ONLY referring to the size of the sights (in mils) in the game, not the size of the actual BMP files.
-
Thanks for the update Hitech.
-
Well, at least nothing important was hurt. :)
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Sorry but my side's were splitting with agony on that reply well done Skuzzy 10 out of 10 for brain power and humour there :lol
-
Knite,
Currently, the game allows BMP files for gunsights to be 256x256px. With the default setting of 128mil, this means a 256x256 gunsight has a resolution of 2px/mil.
I'm asking for clarification on whether BMP files larger than 256px will be allowed or whether that's going to remain the max size limit. hitech's post was ONLY referring to the size of the sights (in mils) in the game, not the size of the actual BMP files.
Ahh, sorry, I did not know the current max. It just seemed to me that from HT's post, it appeared the max BMP file size would not change, and that the mil file was a sort of "scaler" file that would scale up or down the bmp without changing the system impact (which allowing a larger bmp file would do), so I tried to answer at least semi-intelligently.
;-)
-
I didn't even remember we had a limit. But the limit was simply to make sure they were a power of 2. Never really thought someone would want more then 256. Any way it now reads.
static int _TexImageOk(grTEX_IMAGE * TexImage)
{
if(TexImage->Width != TexImage->Height)
{
return 0;
}
if(TexImage->Width != 16 &&
TexImage->Width != 32 &&
TexImage->Width != 64 &&
TexImage->Width != 128 &&
TexImage->Width != 256 &&
TexImage->Width != 512 &&
TexImage->Width != 1024)
{
return 0;
}
return 1;
}
-
I didn't even remember we had a limit. But the limit was simply to make sure they were a power of 2. Never really thought someone would want more then 256. Any way it now reads.
static int _TexImageOk(grTEX_IMAGE * TexImage)
{
if(TexImage->Width != TexImage->Height)
{
return 0;
}
if(TexImage->Width != 16 &&
TexImage->Width != 32 &&
TexImage->Width != 64 &&
TexImage->Width != 128 &&
TexImage->Width != 256 &&
TexImage->Width != 512 &&
TexImage->Width != 1024)
{
return 0;
}
return 1;
}
:headscratch: :headscratch: Brain aboot tay explode :headscratch: :headscratch:
-
I think he's saying the BMP files for gun sights can now be up to 1024x1024px.
I do have a revised Mk.VIII that's 512x512 (scales to 2px/mil). Once the next patch is released I'll put up a download on the Bucs squad site that will set it as the sight for:
P-47D-25
F4F-4
FM-2
SBD-5
TBM-3
F6F-5
All F4Us
with the necessary MIL files to scale it.
-
I think he's saying gun sights can now be up to 1024x1024.
Phew brain now deflating PHEW thanks :aok :lol
-
If you don't understand this stuff bullet you might want to just surf elsewhere.
Cause as it is your making yourself look pretty silly.
Not that I'm picking on you, cause I'm not. More in the way of an for your information helpful advice.
-
If you don't understand this stuff bullet you might want to just surf elsewhere.
Cause as it is your making yourself look pretty silly.
Not that I'm picking on you, cause I'm not. More in the way of an for your information helpful advice.
Yes i know but i do want to learn about some of this as i want to like be able to create my own sight's one day and really i have picked up some useful hints and tip in here and dare i say it HiTech Boumer and some of the other's havent really minded me asking and learning from them. Better to learn first than not learn and muck up my game :)
-
By all means read and learn all you can, I'm 100% in favor of that.
What I'm saying is if you know you don't have anything that will truly add to the discussion, why say something that will make you look like a fool?
-
By all means read and learn all you can, I'm 100% in favor of that.
What I'm saying is if you know you don't have anything that will truly add to the discussion, why say something that will make you look like a fool?
Actually i helped a tiny fraction as i was able to get Boumer a link to a website with some gunsight data he'd never seen before :)
-
True, and if that had been the only post you'd made, you'd look a whole lot wiser than you do now. Correct?
Suit yourself, I truly was trying to help. But I'll give it up as a lost cause
-
True, and if that had been the only post you'd made, you'd look a whole lot wiser than you do now. Correct?
Suit yourself, I truly was trying to help. But I'll give it up as a lost cause
Not a lost cause me i just check back with this one every day and some times dale has posted sumit and to the others they understand as they have done it for a while where as me im just starting to learn and it may sound silly as i have an over active sense of humour and a few other problems with memory of certain information since a few years back.
Thanks for being thoughtful its appreciated very much :salute
-
Ghost,
Time and patience.
Very soon another decade will come and go. Can't you hear it? Bullet will be in the same place you are now.....
Now littel one if you just wait, Granpaw HiTech will finish COADing the neural brain interface and you can twist the range ring knob.....I just wantted to push the button thingy and make it bigger....now littel one it's a range ring knob....I I really wanna learn...I just wanna push the button thingy noby thingy and shoot the pink guys dead....I'm just trying to help you littelone.....Oh fiddelsticks...bet Ghost is giggling reading this one drinking his morning coffe in his fuzzy bunny slippers..... :old:
-
Ghost,
Time and patience.
Very soon another decade will come and go. Can't you hear it? Bullet will be in the same place you are now.....
Now littel one if you just wait, Granpaw HiTech will finish COADing the neural brain interface and you can twist the range ring knob.....I just wantted to push the button thingy and make it bigger....now littel one it's a range ring knob....I I really wanna learn...I just wanna push the button thingy noby thingy and shoot the pink guys dead....I'm just trying to help you littelone.....Oh fiddelsticks...bet Ghost is giggling reading this one drinking his morning coffe in his fuzzy bunny slippers..... :old:
Im laughing my socks off :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Bullet,
It is very possible if Ghost has been kind enough to give you a freindly nudge that it's time to give your freinds on this Forum a tiny break. Other wise I suspect your enthusiam throughout all of the sections on the Forum may result in fuzzy bunny slipper and LCD cleaning bills from sputtered and spewed coffee mysteriously showing up in your mailbox.....Don't fret, your fan club still loves you...we need a break to get our beauty sleep... :joystick:
The BulletVI Fuzzy Bunny Slippers Fan Club........ :angel:
-
Ok i just cant resist a good joke lol :rofl :rofl
( And i probally dont have freinds here maybe enemy's tho i cant tell if you fly for the rooks or knight's or the bish even :lol :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl )
-
Skuzzy,
Please smack me in the noggin as hard as you can several times with your "NUMPTE" stick........ :salute
-
I didn't even remember we had a limit. But the limit was simply to make sure they were a power of 2. Never really thought someone would want more then 256. Any way it now reads.
static int _TexImageOk(grTEX_IMAGE * TexImage)
{
if(TexImage->Width != TexImage->Height)
{
return 0;
}
if(TexImage->Width != 16 &&
TexImage->Width != 32 &&
TexImage->Width != 64 &&
TexImage->Width != 128 &&
TexImage->Width != 256 &&
TexImage->Width != 512 &&
TexImage->Width != 1024)
{
return 0;
}
return 1;
}
heres a more compact way... just cuz I'm lame and like stupid programming challenges...
static int _TexImageOk(grTEX_IMAGE * TexImage)
{
return ( (TexImage->Width | TexImage->Height ) &&
( TexImage->Width == TexImage->Height ) &&
!( TexImage->Width & ( TexImage->Width - 1 ) )
);
}
I didn't test or compile it so there may be some syntactical issues but its less processor cycles.
-
heres a more compact way... just cuz I'm lame and like stupid programming challenges...
static int _TexImageOk(grTEX_IMAGE * TexImage)
{
return ( (TexImage->Width | TexImage->Height ) &&
( TexImage->Width == TexImage->Height ) &&
!( TexImage->Width & ( TexImage->Width - 1 ) )
);
}
I didn't test or compile it so there may be some syntactical issues but its less processor cycles.
You're missing the variables Ardy, the way it's written it's just making empty repeated calls looking for something that either has to exist somewhere else or within the script.
-
Ardy if you ever wrote that code for me you would be fired.
HiTech
-
You're missing the variables Ardy, the way it's written it's just making empty repeated calls looking for something that either has to exist somewhere else or within the script.
The passed in parameters TexImage which can be dereferenced to point to TexImage->Width and TexImage->Height are the only variables you need.
there are no function calls from within that function..
(TexImage->Width | TexImage->Height ) = will result in a non-zero value if either width or height is non-zero by 'or'ing the two values
( TexImage->Width == TexImage->Height ) = checks if both the texture width and height are the same size
!( TexImage->Width & ( TexImage->Width - 1 ) = checks if the width is a power of 2
The return statement returns the result of the logical expression.
Ardy if you ever wrote that code for me you would be fired.
HiTech
:rofl I'm not trying to question your abilities at all, and very true, it is obfuscated and hard to understand, thus hard to maintain but you don't have to keep adding logical expressions every time you want to support a larger texture that is a power of 2. I suppose if you wanted to lock it so it didn't support beyond a certain size you could throw in one last expression like
(TexImage->Width <= MAX_GUNTEX_SIZE)
where somewhere else you had defined.
enum {
...
MAX_GUNTEX_SIZE = 1024
...
};
-
What does HiTech know to which he is looking for the return of 16, 32, 128, 256, 512, 1024 as specific responses opposed to sampling for all text images between "0" and "1024"? Is it to account for end user fat fingering when creating the milrad size text file data entry? --Or-- Is the function looking for those specific responses a very simple and elegant entity which needs only those 6 responces opposed to parsing everything between 0 and 1024 in each text file? After all we can only black box the COAD in this post looking for the 6 responses. We have absolutly no clue if it is a real part of the game COAD or HiTech chatting with a freind in a casual moment.
Seems like something my assembley language teacher used to ding me over.
-
What does HiTech know to which he is looking for the return of 16, 32, 128, 256, 512, 1024 as specific responses opposed to sampling for all text images between "0" and "1024"? Is it to account for end user fat fingering when creating the milrad size text file data entry? --Or-- Is the function looking for those specific responses a very simple and elegant entity which needs only those 6 responces opposed to parsing everything between 0 and 1024 in each text file? After all we can only black box the COAD in this post looking for the 6 responses. We have absolutly no clue if it is a real part of the game COAD or HiTech chatting with a freind in a casual moment.
Seems like something my assembley language teacher used to ding me over.
HiTech is looking for images with widths that are a power of 2. Traditionally a lot of graphics platforms required the width of a texture to be a power of 2. This is mainly for performance and silicon reduction reasons. For example, when the hardware indexes into the texture to retrieve a texel, it would have to convert a 2d coordinate (u,v) to a 1 dimensional memory address. The formula for finding this is...
(texture_width * v + u) * texture_bit_depth + texture_start_memory_location
Now what does that have to do with widths that are a power of 2? Well, if the width is a power of two a 'bit-shift' to the left can be used instead of a multiplication operation which is faster and requires less silicon to do. AKA
2<<1 = 2 *2 = 4
or
2<<2 = 2 *4 = 8
Also you could 'cap' and 'wrap' texture u values and force them to be within the bounds of the texture with simple boolean operations such as 'and'.
texture width = 32
/* force texture u coordinate to wrap */
u = u&(width-1);
Now of course there are many more reasons hardware designers chose this option beyond just texel indexing but the short answer is that historically textures had to be widths of powers of 2.
I don't know that much about DirectX, but I know that there are extensions to OpenGL which support non-power of 2 texture widths... aka GL_ARB_texture_non_power_of_t wo is one that comes to mind.
Another option would be wasteful of memory but a non-power-of-2 width texture could be blited into a larger power-of-2-texture then the corresponding texture coordinates on the mesh could be updated to point to the correct locations in the texture.
Ok HiTech, now its your turn to attempt to lambast me on the BBS as I know your itching too. :)
-
:banana: :noid :lol :O
-
Ardy it simple, I have been coading for close to 40 years. The piece of coad you wrote is
1. Not equivalent to mine. Yours test only for power of 2, mine test for specific size, hence any discussion which is better is moot.
2. As I said, I would fire some one for writing that.
3. There are times for efficient code, But 99% of the time straight forward easy to understand code trumps speed.
4. I don't write code for the simple sake of coading, I write coad to do something with it.
HiTech
-
You're old.
-
Cripes Coad
-
Ardy it simple, I have been coading for close to 40 years. The piece of coad you wrote is
1. Not equivalent to mine. Yours test only for power of 2, mine test for specific size, hence any discussion which is better is moot.
Never said one was better than the other nor was I trying to 'one up you'. I was just trying to make is smaller for the sake of doing so.
heres a more compact way... just cuz I'm lame and like stupid programming challenges...
3. There are times for efficient code, But 99% of the time straight forward easy to understand code trumps speed.
Agreed, and I admitted to that too, but I wasn't trying to produce production code, I was trying to see if I could make it smaller, thats all.
it is obfuscated and hard to understand, thus hard to maintain
-
Style, etc., aside, your first line doesn't do what you think. &&.
-
Seems like something my assembley language teacher used to ding me over.
Ardy,
After HiTech was gracious enough to respond to your excellent followup, is there possibly another approach you could have used to introduce your skillset and enquire to the efficiency of HiTech's coad structure? Other wise, your initial post appeared to be more of a veiled challenge than a dialogue. After working at a company during the late 90's that had an internal COADing group, and having to herd a room full of them through Y2K reverse engineering for a year. COADers are a bit like swordsman. Very talented, creative, resorcefull and territorial. Add to the younger ones "aggresive". Especially in their own territory.
Ardy I'm so old I had to learn Assembly on the 8086 to graduate from tech school. Programers now have to know so much more and be that much more talented to compete. I'm always impressed with what successful working programers have had to go through to be employed today. But, manners are forever... :salute
-
from just reading the last phew post i can now determin that if hitch want's any lengthing COADing done or a better way to do it he shall ask for help within the comunity. altho your post Ardy want meant to offend oranything maybe you could have reworded it a bit better as i believe hitech may have taken some offence in it. Remember Ardy Ace's High II is his Brain Child and like any other Father if he feels his child is threatened or made a fool of he shall always be ready to defend his child. :) :salute
-
Coad warz
(http://p11.hostingprod.com/@sykopig.com/smilies/bangin.gif)
-
Skuzzy,
Please for COAD's sake smack me over the head with a Numpte stick.
I swear everywhere I go in the Forum now bullets are following me................ :huh
Just one tiny weenie bash on the O'l noggin....... :pray
-
Skuzzy,
Please for COAD's sake smack me over the head with a Numpte stick.
I swear everywhere I go in the Forum now bullets are following me................ :huh
Just one tiny weenie bash on the O'l noggin....... :pray
OUTCH THAT WAS SAIR OOOHHH A+E TIME Thats E,R To you Americans :lol :rofl
BYE BYE :lol :x :banana: :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
I think grandpa needs his meds and a trip to the bahamas. Ardy... you need a woman. HiTech... go make babies or something, you work too hard.
-
Saxman's Mk.VIII Gunsight Package is tested in game and is now available for download here (http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/Media/Sights/MkVIII.zip)!
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Media/Sights/MkVIII.png)
-
Noticed an issue with the sights when I was trying out the 256 one you created a couple of days ago. If you raise the gun sight, the last vertical line will stretch to the bottom of the gun sight. I'll post a screenshot of it when I got home from work so you can see better what I'm talking about.
Also, just wanted to say thanks again for taking the time to redo the gunsights for the new update.
ack-ack
-
I just checked these from my end and wasn't having a problem.
-
Noticed an issue with the sights when I was trying out the 256 one you created a couple of days ago. If you raise the gun sight, the last vertical line will stretch to the bottom of the gun sight. I'll post a screenshot of it when I got home from work so you can see better what I'm talking about.
that sounds a bit like what you see in the video clips Dogg posted (most obvious in the RAF site video):
Most gunsight reticules showed larger the the reflector glass. Here is what I mean as a example:
Type 98 gunsight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXsVg8F91t8
Mk. VIII gunsight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7KvpWloagE
RAF TypeI Mk,II gunsight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blem3FlkaMc
-
Noticed an issue with the sights when I was trying out the 256 one you created a couple of days ago. If you raise the gun sight, the last vertical line will stretch to the bottom of the gun sight. I'll post a screenshot of it when I got home from work so you can see better what I'm talking about.
Also, just wanted to say thanks again for taking the time to redo the gunsights for the new update.
ack-ack
Ack-Ack that is/was an issue before the update (kind of). If you don't want the lines to stretch there needs to be 2 rows/columns of black pixels around the edge of the bitmap.
-
Neither the earlier 256 version nor the 512 version of the Mk.VIII in the ZIP file fill the entire BMP, so even if this issue still occurs this sight should be fine.
-
btw saxman, the f4u-1 did not use a mk.VIII sight. F4u-1 used the N-3B sight. All the other hogs used the Mk.VIII mod 6-8 sight.
-
This is what I mean.
#1 Mk.VIII
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm94/Ack-Ack/th_ahss18.jpg?t=1279857837) (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm94/Ack-Ack/ahss18.jpg?t=1279857794)
#2 My regular sight
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm94/Ack-Ack/th_ahss20-1.jpg?t=1279857959)
ack-ack (http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm94/Ack-Ack/ahss20-1.jpg?t=1279857905)
-
Anybody with the skill to make these things know if there are RAF sights in the works?
-
Ack-Ack that is/was an issue before the update (kind of). If you don't want the lines to stretch there needs to be 2 rows/columns of black pixels around the edge of the bitmap.
Yeah, it's been an issue ever since I can remember but never knew what the fix was. Thanks!
ack-ack
-
Anybody with the skill to make these things know if there are RAF sights in the works?
Yes there are, it will be next week but, I'll have a couple of Mk.II's ready for use. I'm sure AKDogg is working on them as well.
-
Yes there are, it will be next week but, I'll have a couple of Mk.II's ready for use. I'm sure AKDogg is working on them as well.
Where will we be able to get them? Will there be a centralized thread in the Custom Skins and Sounds forum, or will we just have to keep our eyes on this one?
-
Yes there are, it will be next week but, I'll have a couple of Mk.II's ready for use. I'm sure AKDogg is working on them as well.
Thank you. I have always run AH with sights as historical as I could manage and would prefer to continue doing so.
-
btw saxman, the f4u-1 did not use a mk.VIII sight. F4u-1 used the N-3B sight. All the other hogs used the Mk.VIII mod 6-8 sight.
Ken Walsh stated they used Mk.VIIIs in the F4U-1s. I'd say he's probably a reliable source. So either they were built with N-3s and these were replaced in the field before being released to the pilots, (seeing as the F4F-4 and SBD-5 were using the Mk.VIII, it's logical the Corsairs were either built or updated to it) or one of the two sources is wrong (if you're basing it on that Japanese site, I'd trust Walsh over that any day).
Yeah, it's been an issue ever since I can remember but never knew what the fix was. Thanks!
It looks like you're actually using the sight that was cut off at 128mil, not the full-sized cross (which is 150mil). Have you tried the version in the ZIP file I put up? I didn't have any trouble with it.
-
Well as far as I know you're both right. The Corsair was designed for a telescopic sight that was going to be the USN standard, but the US was allowed to license the British Mk.II sight from Barr and Stroud. So the "guts" of the N-series sights, as well as the USN Mk.VIII, and Mk.IX sights are all the same. The USN adopted the N-3 for a short time until the development of the Mk.VIII was complete. This is discussed in the book of the joint fighter conference, at NAS Pax River in Oct 1944.
So given that the F4U-1 in game seems to me to be a later production model, I suspect the Mk.VIII is more correct, but it could be either.
-
Didnt the US army air corp adopt the British sight as they where going to be flying from England and thus it would be easier to repair or replace as the Parts where made in Places like Inverness, Fife, Edinburgh And Glasgow :)
-
There was a coad war and I missed it? Oh, man...anyone who has seen my sig knows what fine, concise, easily read and interpreted coad I write...
Going to need a better sight manager now :)
-
Neither the earlier 256 version nor the 512 version of the Mk.VIII in the ZIP file fill the entire BMP, so even if this issue still occurs this sight should be fine.
That fixed it, the new updated sights you released don't have the problem of your earlier version.
ack-ack
-
Just finished rebuilding the RUS_PB1 Russian gunsight using a 512x512 bmp file. It finally scales correctly in the yaks and the La's and is usable unzoomed.
If you start a new 512x512 8bit bmp file with black background and draw a single pixel line grid of an X and a Cross and save it. You can put it in the sights directory and begin seeing what your maximum edge locations will be for the Primary ring or edges of extending posts. I have a (basic.bmp) template file that I set to my targeted ride. It has a grid of hashes set at every 10 pixels that lets me know my dimensions when I look through the gunsight. Based on the hash marks I begin recreating the old 256x256 gunsight files. It was surprising how the scale had changed for the old JP98Small gunsight I use in the A6M. The Ki61 gunsight dosen't squeeze in the sides of gunsights anymore.
HiTech's change with Baumer and Saxmans help is de BOMB......... :salute
-
Incidentally, if anyone wants to compile a complete package for all sights (like some of the packs that have been released in the past) you have my permission to include the Mk.VIII. Just be sure proper credit is given in a readme somewhere.
-
anyone know the diameter in mils of the RAF B&S Mk II and Mk III reflector sights reticle circle? cant find the info anywhere, just references to the "100mph circle" :headscratch:
-
Trying to find the size of these reticles is proving to be INCREDIBLY difficult. I tried several different ways of Googling for it and came up empty most of the time.
-
really, I'm surprised I havent managed to dig this stuff out yet :eek:
-
The 100mph ring is a hold over term from the late 1930's biplane days. Because WW2 Barr & Stroud rings were adjustable to represent a wingspan of a known aricraft at a known distance. And air combat speeds were much faster, it is moot and an old common term to describe the circle on British gunsights. We use a fixed MkII ring. What wingspan at 300 or 200 yards do you want it to represent when you create your British M2 512x512 bitmap sight?
The radius of the graticule ring gave the deflection allowance for hitting a target crossing at 161 km/h (100 mph).
-
Actually bustr as I understand it from Wolfs' book that describes the Mk.II operation, only the horizontal bars move in and out for the range selection the circle doesn't change. As for the bullet drop, the whole reticule image (bars and circle) would move up or down. Since AH accounts for the up down motion when you set the convergence this doesn't need to get modeled.
I have not be able to ascertain the ring dimension either, but if it's a 100 mph ring then it can be calculated. I'll work on that, and post up my calculations later this evening.
-
What wingspan at 300 or 200 yards do you want it to represent when you create your British M2 512x512 bitmap sight?
Little hint on this one: if you want it to be a 30ft wingspan at 200yds set it to 50mil apart.
-
only the horizontal bars move in and out for the range selection the circle doesn't change.
thats my understanding of it. couldnt find any reference to the range for the "100mph circle" either (I assume thats a 90deg snapshot at 100mph)
-
I found this at least giving the data for a 100mph ring at 200 yards. So at 200 yards the radius of the ring is 11.5 meters. You had an earlier formula which I think this number will compute the ring diameter at least to 200 yards in mil?
Typical parameters for a fixed gun were: own speed - 161 km/hr (100 mph), target crossing speed - 161 km/hr (100 mph 90 degrees across the pilot's line of sight), range 183 m (200 yds). In this situation the bullet would take 0.254 sec to reach the target, which would have travelled 11.5 m (37.7 ft).
From: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=114&t=17649
-
yeah, I saw that, I suppose it may be the same although that is for 1916 ring and bead type sights. if it is the same, I make it about 126mil diameter. big if though.
-
I suspect it's supposed to be rather larger as well (120+ Mil) but I haven't found any details to confirm it. Another point of reference according to Wolfs' book the Raf Mk.I and Mk.II should have the same ring size. So if anyone comes across details about the RAF Mk.I it would be helpful to know.
Having looked at many of the historical gun sight packs it seems pretty common that we made them to small, on average.
-
Middle of the page here:
http://www.spitfirespares.com/SpitfireSpares.com/Pages/gunsites.html
Some one has lite the bulb. If you click on the picture it becomes larger and you will notice the inner ends of the range bar. Has daigonal pointed ends like it has been swiped top left down to bottm right. Probably related to how the space is increased or shortend by the wingspan dial.
If you accept the picture as accurate, then its a matter of playing with it zoomed in photoshop. Zoom a screen capture from our spit16 so the two projector lenses are the same size. Then go from the dot and work diameters outward. that should give you the 100mph ring for the Barr & Stroud GM series sights.
-
The ring comes out aprox 150 pixels.
The reticle in the picture's proportions are the cross is a 10cm x 10cm cross. The inside diameter of the ring edge of light to edge of light is 5cm. Center of the lit ring side to side is 5.5cm. The glass on HTC's MkII reflector sight looks a different proportion than the ones from the web sight refrenced here.
-
I like your thinking sherlock :D
I'm going to use that as a last resort, was thinking the Mk II youtube vid would be ideal because iirc its held at arms length so we know roughly the range to the sight for the real one. cockpit measurements give us the rough AH range so a combination of both tells us how big it should look in AH. the diameter in mils would be accurate and sooo much easier tho :(
-
Bustr that's a great web site, but I don't think it that's how the math works out for a Mk.II. One interesting point, on the second page is that the horizontal and vertical lines should extend all the way to the optics edge.
Just wish I had the money laying around to buy that stuff!
-
yup thats what Im trying on my sights, just want to make the ring the accurate size :)
-
Based on the photograph, HiTech's reflector glass is not tall enough. By the way if you gauge the ring using 2pixels = a mil. The ring is 75mil and offline that's a Bf109 wingspan at 200 yards using a 512x512 mask and .mil file at 256. I set my space on the bar for that wingspan at 400 yards. I suppose I could also lower the whole reticule a few mil to adjust for bullet drop at 400 yards to be accurate....I used to make my old gunsights with a centred dot and one just below as a compensator.... :)
Well I can extend the lines but I used the proportions from the picture. The distance one line extends out from the ring is a radius. I would need to enlarge my ring to about 80mil to proportionately lengthen the lines to fit completely across HiTech's reflector plate. But the vertical lines would over run the top and bottom edges due to the plate not being the same proportions as the one in the picure.
Updated: by bustr 12:10 pm pst 7-28-2010
I just expanded the Youtube video of the MkII to life size. At least his finger width matched mine. :D
Proportions:
A.) Reflector Glass width across center is 12cm.
B.) Diameter of ring 5cm.
C.) Arms of the cross are 1.5 cm each.
I'm thinking there is a bit of variation in these rings and arms by who produced the hardware. And they are an aproximation of a 100mph ring at 200yards.
-
yup thats what Im trying on my sights, just want to make the ring the accurate size :)
OkyDokey,
Just finished a MkII reticle with an 80 mil/160 pixel ring. If you spawn, then zoom it in so that the glass is 12cm across and the ring is 5cm. I added so much blur and illumination to it, it now looks exactly and measures like the YouTube video you were refrencing.
512 x 512 bitmap black background.
Ring and line color Orange.
Ring 160 pixels.
Cross - Each arm is 100 pixels from ring edge out.
Horizontal bar center space - 76 pixels.
Lines and circles 2 pixels wide rough drawing.
Gussian Blur and Illumination effect until lines are 12 pixels wide high illumination orange.
Include a mil file with 256 in it.
I'm starting to see these blasted things in my sleep Holmesy. You want I should lift yur garage and rotate it 12 degrees to the left now.......... :rolleyes:
-
Buamer,
The K14 has two imageing lenses. The right hand one has a fixed ring with cross center dot and the left hand has the six sided computing star with dot. I know you could lock out the ranging six pointed star and use the left hand circle as a fixed reticle ring and do the same for the right hand star reticle locking it in a fixed aspect. Did the left and right hand lenses project the reticles to the center of the reflector glass, or just stright up on the left or right hand side of glass?
If it is simply straight up on the left or right hand side, then to be accurate we would need two reticle for the K14 and the player would have to decide to move their center forward view left or right like on the P47D-11 to use one or the other reticle....... :devil
-
I added so much blur and illumination to it, it now looks exactly and measures like the YouTube video you were refrencing.
I'd be careful using those videos as a reference, particularly if the sight has been jury-rigged in some guy's basement. The amount of blur and red in the sight is the result of how much power if being fed to the sight, and the quality of the bulb. When the reticle is in the red spectrum and heavily blurred, it's an indicator that the sight is not powered properly, or has a bad bulb. With the right amount of juice and a good bulb you're looking at a sight that's more yellow with a sharper image.
-
Ok I'll back the blur and illumination down to your MkVIII. No problemo. Thats less clutter unzoomed.
-
so Ive been playing around with some gun sights, almost got my B&S ones done.
whats the deal with alpha channel/transparency? I notice my sights have a ?blue background when you select them in options, all the others are black. I used a black background. :headscratch:
-
(http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/31eeefa8ccd8a7634ea68e648c59eba36g.jpg)
This photo was taken from the inside of a spitfire cockpit almost exaclty as the pilot would see it. notice the double image. The actual sight image is the bottom one.
-
I got this off a website and compiled them to these docs. Its 1 zip file with about 6-8 docs on all the gunsights.
http://www.arabian-knights.org/files/Dogg/Histgunsightdocs.zip
Thanks Dogg, just a lil note... these word documents are in the docx file extension ( think only windows 2007 or 2010 will open them, unless you have the patch file to access docx files with MSword2003 or 2002 )
will be looking forward to your completed Gunsights package or saxman's......
great work everyone
-
afaik any version of word will open them if you install the office file format converter patch (I'm using office 2000.) might even open in wordpad with this patch (havent tried it) or, better, use the free OpenOffice :aok
-
(http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/31eeefa8ccd8a7634ea68e648c59eba36g.jpg)
This photo was taken from the inside of a spitfire cockpit almost exaclty as the pilot would see it. notice the double image. The actual sight image is the bottom one.
I just asked my Father about this who was in the RAF when our jet fighter's where still using this Mark of gun sight. All thought it wasn't his Job to deal with the Gun Sight ( he was air frames ) He said that that may have been the later war version Gunsights as what you would do is in a dog fight the pilot would some how bring both sight's in to alinement on the aerial target then fire. But he isn't sure.
What make of Spitfire is it ?? is it the mk 17 ?????? Or an end of-line Make ( one of the last mark's made ??? )
-
This photo was taken from the inside of a spitfire cockpit almost exaclty as the pilot would see it. notice the double image. The actual sight image is the bottom one.
nice - looks exactly the same size as mine (guess I got my sums right then :)). any idea how far from the sight the camera was?
-
nice - looks exactly the same size as mine (guess I got my sums right then :)). any idea how far from the sight the camera was?
The photo was taken from the seated position. The spitfires cockpit is very crunched imo. As far as the second reflected image, thats just what happens when the sight reflects off the windshield. An annoying biproduct. I have a few more photos of this plane somewhere. Its restored right down to the spare gunsight light bulb rack on the right side.
-
The photo was taken from the seated position. The spitfires cockpit is very crunched imo. As far as the second reflected image, thats just what happens when the sight reflects off the windshield. An annoying biproduct. I have a few more photos of this plane somewhere. Its restored right down to the spare gunsight light bulb rack on the right side.
Ah COOL then forget my earlier post then :salute
-
nice - looks exactly the same size as mine (guess I got my sums right then :)). any idea how far from the sight the camera was?
I went with 80mil as the 100mph ring. What did you go with?
That picture looks like to the right is an adjustment knob for the angle of the reflector plate. There was a version of the Mk2 used in Typhoon where the reflector plate could be moved 5 degrees to lower the reticle to account for the drop on the HVAR rockets. The reticle seems a tad low<5deg> for guns combat.
-
my calcs from the only evidence I could find for the plain circle and dot version gave either 66 or 73.3mil depending on how you calculate it. the one with lines has surely got to be the same (certainly looks like it from pics of the illuminated graticule). given the USAAF? versions of the same sight used 70/140mil ive assumed 70mil. this matches up nicely with all the pics I have too. I'll post all the pics and calcs when I post the sights :)
The photo was taken from the seated position. The spitfires cockpit is very crunched imo.
ty, just wanted to compare it with the AH version. yeah its tiny isnt it? one advantage though - pilots could brace their elbows against the side of the cockpit to steady the stick while lining up their shot :aok
-
Just noticed something there with the sight. Either the sights gyroscope needs recalibrated ao the Spit isn't sitting on level ground :) The sight isn't centred :)
-
See the littel knob to the right. Bet that sight is a variation on the Mk2L used by Typhoons with the 5 degree tilt in the reflector plate to lower the center dot to fire rockets. Somebody at the restoration nees to turn the knob again for another picture.
-
Oh yeah i see it why cant we get that for firing rockets :(
-
Up a Tiffy with rockets offline.
Enable the lead computing sight for dive bombing.
Climb to 2k.
Fly level until you reach max speed.
Turn around and fly back to the feild.
Find one of the drone tanks and fly at it.
When you are 2k away start a gradual dive at it.
At 1k Alt-S to capture your screen. The green cross should also be on the tank.
Take this screen capture and open it in an art program.
Where the green cross is in the Mk2 reticle below the default center dot, insert a second center dot into your Mk2.bmp reticle file.
This will corrispond to about the 5 degree change when the reflector plate is tilted to lower the dot.
HiTech could coad this change but why when you can put a second lower dot in your M2.bmp file.
Bottom of this page has a picture and explanation:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=17850