Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Seagoon on March 29, 2005, 03:41:08 PM
-
Hi guys,
Just saw the new 190 cockpit and while I'm well-impressed by the detail etc, I'm wondering if the control panel in the Real World 190 was really so high? Looks to me like you can barely see over it and any aircraft just below the nose will be well-nigh invisible.
Not a big deal, just wondering. I hardly ever fly the 190s anyway.
- SEAGOON
-
Yup. There are pics out there looking back from the cowl that show only a little rectangle the pilot looks through.
Thr sighting line was raised ~ 3* because of the 25* sloped glass.
There was a big stink aboutf the Fw190's forward view in Il-2. Naturally nothing was done about it dispite all the proofs that it was wrong. :(
-
As posted in other thread, Fw 190 frontal view from the pilot POV:
(http://www.triplane.net/Lulu/LThumbs/MyView.jpg)
-
Gonna try and superimpose it upon our AH2 sample pic Nate provided... when I'm home.
-
Couple more cockpits like this and everyones gona have a TIR!
-
anyone know when they will put in the new 190 cockpit and skin?
-
Next version, see the News&Announcements forum for yourself.
-
(http://org.fighters.co.kr:8000/upload/gallery/org/1112167990761.jpg)
At first, I didn't think it would be that much meaningful, since different perspective yields different looking surfaces... until I realized that the pic Mando posted is in almost exactly the same angle as the sample pic of the 190 cockpit Nate provided.
* The area outlined in white, is the real 190 cockpit. The rest of the areas, are the AH2 190 cockpit.
* No warping of the real 190 cockpit pic was done. Only the size has been altered to superimpose upon Nate's pic. The ratio of horizontal/vertical sizes remain the exactly the same.
* Notice how the real 190 cockpit guages almost exactly match the AH2 cockpit guages. (Big Kudos to Natedog)
* All of the areas highlighted in orange, can be considered as 'exaggerated'.
* The red lines indicate the continuity of the frontal 'bars'(swathed in leather?). The real 190 cockpit pic has the right part of the bars misaligned.
* I used Fester's cockpit shot and took the Revi12D gunsight and warped it a bit to fit the cockpit bars in proper scale. If we would be sitting in an AH2 Fw190A-5, the Revi12D gunsight should be that big.
Ofcourse, there could be some differences. Mando's cockpit picture, has a POV a bit higher than Nate's AH2 190 pit. So, the size of the frontal area of the windshield cannot be accurately compared.
However, the width of the canopy bars and struts, can be compared - and it is too dang thick.
Especially two frontal struts - they are just waaaaaay too thick, even if we consider that Fw190A-8s had thicker armoured glass than the earlier 190s.
__________________
-
FW190A8 did not have thicker frontal glass than any other Fw190. All of the 190 had the same basic frontal glass.
Some 190s used as specialist bomber destroyers were up armored with steel on the fuselage and special armor glass panels over the quarter windows of the windshield and also on the front part of the sliding canopy. The new AH 190 screenshot does not show these features. Also, these models were extreemly heavy and poor fliers and few in number so I dont think HTC is modeling this version as our general Fw190a8 model.
So the thick bars are are just a bit of mistaken modeling of a difficult shape, and I think we can belive it will be corrected just like the Ki84 and P38G windshields were. Lets have the correct frames. :)
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
[B Especially two frontal struts - they are just waaaaaay too thick, even if we consider that Fw190A-8s had thicker armoured glass than the earlier 190s. [/B]
My picture is from a 190A8.
-
Thanks for the work Mando and Kweassa, it seemed like a little bit of an exageration.
Not that I want to give any of the Wuftwobbles a break... ;) So perhaps the next revision could have a little letterbox to look through on the D9?
- SEAGOON
-
AWesome work Kweassa, WTG.
-
Damn right G NO twittlering with ma Wulf!
-
Bump.
Just flew the D9 for a while, beside the fact that the aimin point is way below the center of the gunsight, the foward view is now absolutely horrible.
Especially that totaly overseized horziontal top bar, it almost completely blocks any 12oc high views. That way entire FW190 series is a nogo against any moving target, they can just hide behind those bars and do whatever they want.
-
It will never be corrected.
-
wtf 1st time ive seen that HTC has not considered altering proven faults
-
It was altered greatly between this post and final release.
HiTech
-
whats really kikazzz..is we have theses guys here who will post very good details of what things should look like..run liek ect...
I wish all of you gusy coudl post what I work on a daily basis..Nothn as good as having dozens of folks proof-reading for you..i think thats sweeet
-
Hitech, yes the framework was altered but the frame is still to massive.
I just tried to merge a screenshot of the new D9 cockpit with the picture of the real one here, but couldn't get it right using paint. Sadly i have no other graphics tool around i could use, maybe someone else can do it.
-
Originally posted by hitech
It was altered greatly between this post and final release.
HiTech
Sorry for jumping the gun HT, I should have said if it hasnt been changed it wont be.
-
FW190 was considered by all to have the best visibility from the cockpit of all prop driven LW fighters.
I've been in a D9 cockpit and the frontal vision wasn't as impaired as the 190s vision is in this version. The framework of the front glass isn't as wide. Probably hard to model graphically....but in RL the frontal glass frame wasn't as obtrusive.
The layout of the gauges is great......the design is also very very good. Just need some tinkering with the frontal view.
Also....when looking left or right over the wings.......the leading edge front tips appear to make the wing backwards. Navigation lights?
-
The main problem here might be that we still only have a 2D screen that has to represent a 3D enviroment.
In reality the fact that a human has two eyes which are about 4 inches apart, will counteract even broad framework. My cars frontal window frame is around 3-4 inches thick but is no hindrance at all.
btw Hajo, where were you able to sit in a D9 cockpit? Wright Patterson?
-
Sighting view according to the RAE:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1113514152_pro_190_survey_a_1.jpg)
Search View:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1113514353_pro_190_survey_a_4.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Does the plane fly nose down in AHII?
Amazing that it comments so faveroubly about what is one of the biggest weaknesses of the forward view as implimented. The amount of view below the center of the reticle.
Hard to understand what it means about AOT in relation to Target speed. Are they saying that you could dive at a 400 mph target with only a shallow dive angle but against a 200 mph target you could dive with a 60 degree angle? Is that becuase of how far you would have to lead the target at those speeds and yet still keep a sight picture? interesting.
-
AH's D9 flies at nose down attitude, i have checked that from the external view.
-
Originally posted by Naudet
AH's D9 flies at nose down attitude, i have checked that from the external view.
Naudet, what your should check is what over the nose visibility you have WITHIN the cockpit and without raising your head relative to the gunsight.
-
Is the refraction through the 50mm armour glass modelled? This raises the sighting view by over an inch.
-
No glass is modelled in any of the planes Milo.
However, since AH head positions are customizable, it's not as much a serious problem as in IL2/FB. The framing is pretty heavy, but it's still about ten times more easier to see around than compared to IL2/FB.
-
Kweassa,
don't get me started on the Maddox 190. :D
-
"You is wrong", eh? :D
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
"You is wrong", eh? :D
:aok
-
The 190 canopy frames were redone from when the initial screenshots were posted. We have revised them as far as we can, but ultimately, we are dealing with actual dimensions and not just a look. For example, the forward braces are what are most commonly criticized, but we can't make it any thinner. We know we're dealing with 50mm glass and that's how thick it brace is.
Our models are fully 3D. To find a problem with the shape, don't just look at it from a single angle. Examine it from all angles, inside and out. Perspective is a big factor. For example, someone could post the following screenshot and use it as a critique that the wings of the 190 is built completely out of scale and out of whack. But if you measure everything and look at it from a different viewpoint, you'll see that that is not the case at all.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/pyro/190per.jpg)
-
Pyro, what ever the 3d modeling reasons the effect for the pilots view is more important than having some brace exaclty the width it was.
Obviolsy you must agree that the forward view in the 190 is restrictive and would not be called supperior by anyone that had experiance with the Typhoon like those brit pilots would have had.
Can we test that the view examples that crumb posted will work on the 190 in the game? As beautifle and "atmospheric" as the new cockpit is the most important thing is that it function like the real 190 cockpit, not that a 2d picture of it looks like a 2d picture of a 190 on the ground.
-
" However, the width of the canopy bars and struts, can be compared - and it is too dang thick.
Especially two frontal struts - they are just waaaaaay too thick, even if we consider that Fw190A-8s had thicker armoured glass than the earlier 190s. " Kweassa.....
I agree .... The new frontal view bars are a beast to look thru...
The rest of it is a work of art....
CHECKERS
-
Pyro, IMO, what you should look for is a way to have the most accurate feeling from within the cockpit (and parts of own plane that are seen from within the cockpit).
You should consider that the biggest 3D 190 that we will see from outside usually will be no more than 5 cm long (with the exception of very close formation flying).
-
Yes, let's bring nerfing to AH. :rolleyes:
-
I examined the 190 cockpi from all angles. It still looks too big. I'll have to try and get my hands on some more detailed pictures.
-
Originally posted by Naudet
[...]
In reality the fact that a human has two eyes which are about 4 inches apart, will counteract even broad framework. My cars frontal window frame is around 3-4 inches thick but is no hindrance at all.
[...]
That's it.
I posted in another thread:
Realistic Cockpit.
1) All instruments and indicators are visible by eye movement.
-->No need to move head position by pressing a key
2) The thickness of the cockpit framework is reduced. In RL a short intuitive head movement enables a pilot to "look around" the framework. Or in other words: imagine driving a car with 1 eye closed and the head fixed at the head restraint.
-->No need to move head position by pressing a key
Another way: make all struts in all planes transparent.
-
Ironically, I don't find it too uncomfortable.. must be because I also fly IL2/FB. If you get used to the Fw190s there, AH2 Fw190 cockpits are like transparent fish bowl.
ps) If the dimensions really are correct, my opinion is that it is enough.
-
Pyro, just modeling the braces/framework to original dimension will not create the same visibility as from the real cockpit.
I always though AH was about giving a right "feeling", and cockpit view is one of the few points were modeling to the original dimension will contradict the right "feeling".
Though the old model was a compromise, the result was excellent. One felt in the FW190 the great search view any pilot described. Now it's gone.
That huge top bar makes any lag pursuit, merge or low 6 approach a gambling session, cause one can only imagine were the bad guy will be once he is back in view. Even with TrackIR i am not able to look around those frames and track a moving target in my forward sector.
For me the new modelling renders the FW190 useless, as i can't outfly what i can't see.
P.S.: To be honest, view modelling was the issue that forced me out of FA3 and IL2:FB. Now please don't let it force me out of AH.
-
Especially two frontal struts - they are just waaaaaay too thick, even if we consider that Fw190A-8s had thicker armoured glass than the earlier 190s. " Kweassa.....
The armored glass is the same on all FW-190A air superiority fighter variants. The Rustsatz's 7 and 8 kit's mounted additional armour in order to close to very short ranges and conduct a stern attack on a bomber formation. They are found in a very few specialized units designated "Sturmstaffel". The members of the "Sturmstaffel" were triple volunteers who took an oath to bring down a bomber each sortie, even if it meant ramming and their own death. They were very close to being a Teutonic version of the Kamikaze and their aircraft are very far from a commonly found FW-190 variant.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Those were the one that Galland hotly opposed, right?
RAMMJAEGER. ?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Those were the one that Galland hotly opposed, right?
RAMMJAEGER. ?
At first, sturmböck units were not supposed to ram the enemy bombers. Later, the wings of some sturmböck 190s were reinforced to be able to cut B17s wings. The pilots were not kamikaze at all, they were allowed to bail out before or after the crash.
-
Hi Angus!
Rammkommando Elbe was formed under Hajo Herrmann, same guy who pioneered the "Wilde Sau" concept, very late in the war.
Although many FW-190A R7 and R8 variants were pressed into "Rammjager" service, that was not their original intent behind the design. In fact all "rammjager" aircraft were stripped down.
The "Sturm" units were trained "specialized" units for bomber interception. Although they did take an oath to shoot down a bomber or ram it they were not the same thing as "rammjager". The Sturmstaffel was considered an elite unit. They undertook a very hazardous job but took measures to mitigate the risk. They heavily armored the FW-190's and attacked en mass. Oscar says they thought of themselves like the heavily armored knights of medieval legend. They would form up online, and charge across the sky. Each Rotte would attack one bomber at close range from the six o'clock position. They adopted the Mounted Knight as their symbol. Although the unit took 500 percent casualties, suicide was not the endstate. The mission itself was extremely hazardous and they were expected to do their duty.
The "rammjager" were formed in the last months of the war and included any flyable aircraft the units could find. They were the German equivalent of the Kamikaze. Most of them had little to no training other than how to fly the plane and were recruited from the lower scoring pilot school candidates. They carried little to no ammo and their sole mission was to ram a bomber and destroy the USAAF's will to fight. The small amount of ammo they did carry was only to defend themselves against fighters. Their mission was to find the bombers, pick one, fly straight at it and collide producing maximum shock effect on the surviving bomber crews.
It's a common misconception. Many people think the R7 and R8 is the "rammjager". It is not. A different unit with different philosophy's to accomplish the same thing. One sought a cool professional willing to take enormous risk. The other sought any brave and desperate soul willing to do the mission. In fact talented pilots were turned away from the "rammjagers" as they were needed for the war.
http://www.afmuseum.com/friends/journal/frj_251.html
All the best,
Crumpp
-
TY mate :)
Seen so much misleading stuff about this, so I knew I'd get the answer here ;)
-
Glad to be of help!
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Must be some way to get them a bit thinner without ruining the overall 3-D model...
-
isnt the picture taken inside the 190 - in a museum with the cockpit OPEN?
Wouldnt it being closed add the framing of the rear portion of the canopy?
havent read the whole thread, but thats what it immediately looks like to me, sorry if it has been brought up already.
-
Well, here's one I dug up.
Look closely at the relative positions of the throttle quadrant and the main framing.
(http://org.fighters.co.kr:8000/upload/webedit/1113588000138.jpg)
(http://org.fighters.co.kr:8000/upload/webedit/1113659400192.gif)
If, the exterior dimensions of the cockpit and the cockpit glass is correct, then the interiors are a bit wrong. If the interiors are correctly done, then the position of the main framing is a bit off.
Probably wouldn't make much difference, but..
-
Personally what I think is missing from this whole thing is the pilot.
When firing I bet his forehead was an inch from that bar and his eyes were well below it. So the got a way better view then you get with your head back on the leather head rest.
The cockpit is very small. Even leaning forward would dramatically improve your sight picture.
With track IR vector the cockpit works nicley but it feels like leaning forward kicks in the zoom feature cause the enemy target gets bigger not just the gun sight.
-
I see 2 issues here, from the above posts:
1) The question of whether the framing appears too thick when viewed from the head-on-headrest position.
2) The question of how to best simulate the ability of a real pilot to see around framing, due to binocular vision and the ability to quickly and precisely shift head position.
In my opinion, for game play reasons, we should err on the side of greater SA in both of the above areas. Therefore,
1) The 3-D model should err on the side of thinner framing, up to just before the point where the plane begins to look strange from the game's normal viewing distance. I assume this is what the previous model did, and it looked fine to me.
2) Other game mechanisms should yield equivalent effect to binocular vision and head movement ability. The former might be achieved by allowing icons be visible through the canopy frames, at least to some degree. The latter might be achieved by increasing the "move" speeds (simulating head movement), which are currently glacially slow.
-
Icons could fadeout when behind opaque parts of the cockpit.
-
BTW, I would like to make my motivation clear, here. I am not trying to make my favorite plane better; I care about all of them. I am hoping to (at least) retain our previously existing ability to see out of the cockpit of all planes.
That's because, to me, AH is primarily a WWII flight combat simulation, rather than a movie. Graphics are nice, but not worth sacrificing gameplay over. If I want to see real scenery, I can get up from the computer and go outside (it's free too).
Remember, HTC will be upgrading other planes eventually, and I would hope these visibility issues won't become institutionalized for all of them. If HTC can think of a way to fix this issue now, it might avoid the need for rework later when the P51 guys, the La7 guys, the etc. guys see new models for their planes, with thick canopy framing, and no mechanisms to mitigate this effect.
-
Kweassa,
Thx for posting that diagram of the cockpit. I agree with your perception about the relative size of the throttle to the cockpit pane. But even in that diagram you can see how narrow the two struts are compared to the AH version. It is clear they are too wide! Please HTC fix this.
As probably the player that has the most flying hours in an A8 (since beta) I can honestly say that the new cockpit has seriously hampered SA and the ability to track targets. I find most of my snapshots now rely on guesswork and less precision in shooting because of the frames.
In addition, I agree that in real life the pilot's ability to move his eyes and head quickly to resposition a target for better tracking should be considered when building AH cockpit models. This type of movement is not possible in a video game.
All in all, I don't know if I will become comfortable with the new cockpit. Most 190 pilots/enthusiasts I have spoken with in game feel the same way about the current cockpit.
-
anyone else noticed that the wings now look like the 109E, all square and rubbish looking, where as before they was curved and looked like a real airplane wing?
or is it just my download?
-
Originally posted by Overlag
anyone else noticed that the wings now look like the 109E, all square and rubbish looking, where as before they was curved and looked like a real airplane wing?
or is it just my download?
Overlag
Some of us 190 pilots noticed this in the new AH model and its a flaw in the wing modeling. As Pyro's screenshot showed, from an external view (or even top down) the wingtip is correctly proportioned. What's making it look too sharp, however, is the fact that for some reason the wing is thicker and towards the edge it abrubtly tapers off to the wingtip. What you are seeing is the thickness of the wing not tapering elegantly enough into the wingtip. Examples:
(http://beatdownposse.com/images/Aces_High/RLExample.jpg)
(http://beatdownposse.com/images/Aces_High/wingtip1.jpg)
(http://beatdownposse.com/images/Aces_High/Topdown1.jpg)
(http://beatdownposse.com/images/Aces_High/Topdown2.jpg)
(http://beatdownposse.com/images/Aces_High/Topdown3.jpg)
(http://beatdownposse.com/images/Aces_High/wingtip2.jpg)
it is merely a graphical oversight where the thickness of the wing is not tapering off gently enough. It could easily be fixed (hopefully w/ the cockpit!)
-
I have reviewed all the FW books I own and come to the conclusion I am correct. The inflight postion of a pilot in the FW has his nose under that bar that supports the rear of the windscreen. His head is feet away from that head rest on the rear armour. Put your nose 1 inch from your monitor and see how little the frameing of the monitor bothers your view. Thats how the FW was. You could only see those bars out of your periferal vision when you were in a fighting postion. Excellent forward view.
I wont bother trying to scan the pictures.
A simple look at Ospreys east and west front FW books will show it and it is really clear in the photo version of JG26 top guns of the LW by Caldwell.
The first picture in the FW section of Bonanzas Great Book of WW2 Aircraft has a great front shot of a pilot in the shooting postion of a FW 190A3.
Both this game and to a much greater extent IL2 made this mistake and I am not sure how easy it would be to fix. From that postion it is hard to see the instraments.....
Simply rocking forward with TrackIR3 doesnt solve it in AH2 cause it zooms the view which makes vision and lead harder not easier.
-
LOL Nath, your guesswork is still way superior then mine ;) :D
EDIT: BTW even before you painted me, i knew that it was you. Something about the way that A8 moved...
-
Now it is a pain to dive over enemy bombers with the correct angle and angle variation, they keep most of the time obscured by the frontal arc. I've been completely missing entire formations of 3 B17s.
Left and right frontal scans are now extremely restricted also.
-
the leading edge of the wing is also square for me...:(
also my skins are like 128x128 or something really crappy...and the 1024 update on the mainpage is well out of date! :(
-
Some nice cockpit pictures of real 190A8 from outside:
Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A-8 in detail (http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/10/detail_fw190a8_01.htm)
-
So why have you guys shifted to discussing the shape of the wingtips? Isn't this kind of a minor issue compared to the issue of front view visibility? If we could have continued the original dialog, maybe we could have suggested a solution that HTC would have accepted.
-
review my findings on the pilot position.
-
Originally posted by TDeacon
So why have you guys shifted to discussing the shape of the wingtips? Isn't this kind of a minor issue compared to the issue of front view visibility? If we could have continued the original dialog, maybe we could have suggested a solution that HTC would have accepted.
cos i think its best to keep it all in one thread... and theres like only 3 posts about wings....
overall i think this model is a downgrade. Other than the control dails which i can Read!!!!!! that makes a change for new models
-
The point of the original post was not that the front view was an aesthetic issue, but that it was a GAMEPLAY issue.
However, I see that MOSQ has started a new thread about the gameplay issues of thicker cockpit framing, so that discussion can be dealt with separately. Please, guys, don't start discussing wingtips in the new thread!!! :-)
-
Deacon what are you anyway? Some kind of discussion moderator?
-
Just trying (unsuccessfully) to influence the direction of the thread... :-)
-
It is an sight from the cockpit, and there is no roundness on the wing of AH2.
Especially, the former edge part of the wing has bent to the acute angle.
Because other parts improved, this part doesn't match other parts.
AH2
(http://www.eonet.ne.jp/~kamekubo/ahss0.JPG)
IL2
(http://www.eonet.ne.jp/~kamekubo/ahss1.JPG)
-
Thank you Hitech.
This problem has been improved by the new patch.
I evaluate posture in user's opinion is reflected.
-
enTIRE FORMATIONS of Lancs disappear between front view and 2:00 view. What can't be represented here is the pilot merely shifting his head laterally a few inches back and forth to overcome this, as one would do while driving a car. There simply ARENT enough buttons to map for crap like this. P38 has a more useful view now. I'm bummed..the A8 was the ONLY non dweeb-ride I felt halfway competent with, now I find it fediddleing useless.
-
What has changed?
Anybody got pics? Still at work.. *sigh*
-
1 big problem...
the frames are too dark lol
to me they look like bars from AH1 but thicker!
pls make it a bit lighter (make it like finished metal instead of charcoal metal)
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
What has changed?
Anybody got pics? Still at work.. *sigh*
Frames are a little less deep, so there is more open area to look through the front:
(http://home.hawaii.rr.com/laub016/ahss3.jpg)
mauser
-
Thanks for the trouble mauser
-
Im not postive, but it SEEMS like yesterday's patch improved that vies a bit from what it has been last couple weeks--I know Skuzzy mentioned somethin about 190 art---flew an A8 last night, either it has been a week or so, and now it merely seems normal, or it has been improved a teeny bit. Anyhow, I find it more tolerable than not