Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MOSQ on April 18, 2005, 11:48:50 PM
-
I didn't like the new cockpit framing model in the Ki-84, but live with it.
Then the P-38 frames.
Now the FW-190 frames. The progression has gone from bad but acceptable to far worse and unacceptable for many.
When the P-51, Tempest, P-47,......and so on get their new frames, we are going to have a major gameplay problem.
As posted in other threads, the true view a pilot has is not the same as the view with his head glued to the headrest, with one eye patched over and the other eye with tunnel vision.
HTC, gameplay is suffering with the new cockpit framing model. Please consider going back to the previous policy of gameplay trumps realism.
-
(*whispers*) I personally like it the way it's done....
-
The new AH2 cockpit standards are good/realistic but i would personaly like to see metric units used on russian/axis planes
btw you can move your head all over the cockpit with track ir equipment:)
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
Now the FW-190 frames. The progression has gone from bad but acceptable to far worse and unacceptable for many.
I'd have to agree with this. and honestly I find it hard to beleive that the visability out of the 190s were THAT bad.
from what I can and deduce form tell from pictures the two front braces (or whatever they are called) IMO definately too thick and should probably be about 25% thinner. if anything they should impede more of the front side view then the front center view as they do now. in any event I think the vertical vis should be better and theere should be better visability to the front left,right and down past the nose and past the front of the wings.
These pics can kinda show what Im talking about
(http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/photos/detail_fw190a_01.jpg) and
(http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/photos/detail_fw190a_02.jpg)
(http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/photos/detail_fw190a_06.jpg)
-
As I mentioned in the other thread, this discussion can be decomposed into 2 areas:
1) The question of whether framing appears too thick when viewed from the head-on-headrest position. This has aesthetic and gameplay consequences. Resolution of this issue is likely to be made based on plans and photos, as interpreted by the 3-D engine (terminology??).
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. This has gameplay consequences only. Resolution of this issue is likely to be made based on finding game mechanisms which give the NET EFFECT of what we think real pilots experienced in their cockpits.
I humbly suggest that we keep this distinction in mind when we post to this thread.... :-)
In my opinion, for game play reasons, we should err on the side of greater SA in both of the above areas. Therefore,
For (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.
For (2), other game mechanisms should exist which 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. BTW, Track-IR is fine, but there should be equivalent game functionality for those who use standard input for looking around.
-
If you sat in a fw and put your head back on that leather pad on the back arrmour that is probably the view you would get. If you put your head right up under the windsceen brace like the pilots did then you got a far better view.
It solves the apperant smallness of the revi sight in the game too and the amount of open space under the sight.
-
Pongo,
Are you suggesting a change to my category (1) or to my category (2) to achieve this? The reason I ask is that HTC would need to proceed differently in those 2 cases.
Kweassa,
Does your satisfaction with the framing apply to my category (1), (2), or both?
(I'll never give up... :-) )
-
Pongo, it is not a matter of how good the frontal view is when you have an eye at the gunsight. It is about the overal lack of visibility that makes it almost impossible to track enemy planes when turning.
I would add that current 190F8 and D9 have lost the bubble canopy, internally both have the same vertical space as A8 and A5. So, even the advantage of better over the nose visibitily raising the head is gone.
-
Deacon--
I don't think anyone is considering you.
-
My influence does not appear to be great. Still, Kweassa hasn't responded yet...
For what it's worth, I am concerned that if we discuss these 2 topics together, that the gameplay concerns will be rejected based on concensus that the 3-D model is accurate now. Separating the 2 issues allows the gameplay issue to be dealt with, even if the current 3-D model is generally considered to be acceptable.
-
I am saying that the framing is accurate but the view isnt. Because where the pilots eyes were when he was looking forward isnt modeled accuratly. That is why Pyro posted a picture of a disfigured FW wing when viewed from a certain viewpoint.
The pilots head is in the wrong place which exagurates the impact of the framing. They should both move the pilots head(or provide two postions) and they should find some way to compensate for the lack of periferal and binocular vision. But the biggest issue of the FW vs other aircraft is the mis position of the head of the pilot.
-
Pongo,
When you say "... and they should find some way to compensate for the lack of periferal and binocular vision.", what do you think of (from above): "other game mechanisms should exist which 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."?
A global (for all planes) change is probably more likely to be considered by HTC. When they redo the other cockpits, we may see these problems in other planes as well, and not just FW.
-
Pongo, you are free to move the head and save for all the views. Moving the head forward does not resolve enything, in fact, it is even worse for tracking enemies in a turn. Moving the head full backward when looking Up 12 does not resolve the problem neither.
-
Never the less, the overbearing nature of the framing(well the rear part of it anyway)is because the head is too far forward.
-
I like the way the 190s look now, I am quite pleased with it :aok
-
I think the atmosphere is great, I think the view restrictions are overdone.
-
Originally posted by MANDO
I would add that current 190F8 and D9 have lost the bubble canopy, internally both have the same vertical space as A8 and A5. So, even the advantage of better over the nose visibitily raising the head is gone.
Mando,
I have noticed this also. Why is the up head movement the same on the D9 and F8 as the A8/A5? There should be significantly higher head movement upwards because of the bubble canopy on the D9/F8.
-
Ty TDeacon :)
Your description of the problem gives us the full perspective.
It includes both the objective position (from outside) and the subjective position (from inside).
For me the subjective position is much more important for a satisfying game experience.
-
I'd have to agree with this. and honestly I find it hard to beleive that the visability out of the 190s were THAT bad.
I'll repost these RAE findings so that no misconceptions arise. Facts are both the sighting view and the search view in the FW-190 were among the best in any WWII fighter.
Sighting View:
(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)
I personally like the direction the new cockpits are taking. It is the mix of the new cockpit models and the old cockpit models which really accents things and does not "simulate" the advantages. When the other aircraft are brought up to the new standards things should even out somewhat.
To nitpick:
Looking at the FW-190's cockpit framing, I think the support bars are too far forward in HTC's model and not high enough. The canopy frame itself looks slightly too thick. The armoured glass supports are correct in their size.
One thing I noticed from our restoration of "Black 3" is the supports are tapered. They are almost triangular with the apex tapered toward the pilot. If you stand outside the cockpit and look they are much thicker than the appear from the pilots perspective. In the other thread you can see this if you look closely by the throttle.
When "Black 3's" cockpit is complete we will be filming it from the pilots head position in a 360 degree panaromic view with the canopy closed. The film will be available to our membership only and posted on the members section of the website. Work is almost complete on the cockpit. I will see about getting Pyro a copy of the film.
BTW We should be thanking HTC. Despite the fact some details are wrong, it is obvious they put some time and effort in attempting to get things right.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crump--
I must have missed something. Who is "we" and what is Black 3? A 190D9? A8? You're restoring one? If so, where?
Thanks for any further info.
-
Crumpp,
I think everyone appreciates the effort HTC has put into game improvements, their overall responsiveness, etc. I certainly do. As I said in a thread last year, I am paying $15. per month for something I paid $6. per hour for back around 1990 in AW. And of course AH is an order of magnitude better than AW was.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't politely make suggestions for improvements.
I should probably start another thread requesting a speed-up of the "move" commands. That would probably help some.
-
The new cockpits are starting to make me long for an I-16!
(http://www.aviation-history.com/polikarpov/i16_1.jpg)
-
Who is "we" and what is Black 3? A 190D9? A8? You're restoring one? If so, where?
Thanks for your interest!
"We" is the "White 1 Foundation". A non profit museum and warbird restoration facility specializing in the FW-190.
http://www.white1foundation.org/index.htm
I am the Membership Director.
"Black 3" is an FW-190A3 we are restoring to static display for a museum in Europe. The Foundation owns several FW-190's with our flagship being "Weisse Eins" from JG5 "Eismeer". We are restoring "White 1" to authentic flying condition and will fly her complete with an original BMW 801 motor.
http://www.white1foundation.org/mission_statement.htm
I encourage you to visit the museum, our website, and gift shop. Being a non-profit organization means we survive on donations and sponsors. Donations are fully tax deductible. If you are really interested in the FW-190 and the history of the air war, join the membership. We have the largest collection of original Luftwaffe documentation on the FW-190 in private hands. In our members section we share this documentation with the membership thru articles in the newsletter. Electronic copies of the documents referenced are made available for the members to examine. Donate, Please! We could use the help, one flight worthy blade on the prop of White 1 cost's 8000 USD. The entire prop is 50,000 dollars just to give you and idea of the expense.
http://www.white1foundation.org/sponsors.htm
All the best,
Crumpp
-
That's awesome. This will be the only air-worthy original Fw 190. I wonder where it will be flown?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Looking at the FW-190's cockpit framing, I think the support bars are too far forward in HTC's model and not high enough.
One thing I noticed from our restoration of "Black 3" is the supports are tapered. They are almost triangular with the apex tapered toward the pilot. If you stand outside the cockpit and look they are much thicker than the appear from the pilots perspective. In the other thread you can see this if you look closely by the throttle
Crumpp
Thats basically what I was getting at isnt it?
-
Kweassa, Does your satisfaction with the framing apply to my category (1), (2), or both?
Well, in my case, I basically have no problems in recognizing that 2D depiction of 3D surfaces, is at any rate, always gonna have some kind of problem no matter how well it's done.
As long as the cockpits are scheduled to be visually upgraded, a lot of the flimsy or dinky lookin' stuff we used to see in AH1 is bound to be changed, and many for the worse. But I don't necessarily think AH1 cockpit views were more or less 'correct' than the other. AH1 cockpits did offer better visibility, but it was at a price of visually incorrect and/or flimsily modelled cockpit details.
So given the circumstances, I don't doubt that HTC probably did whatever they could, to increase as much visibility as possible, at the same time trying to maintain the correct 'look' of it all.
Perhaps we're all just too much used to seeing everything so easily. We often have head postions that are impossible...positions that pop out of the windshield... we also have a panoramic 6view to check both sides of the plane at the same time.. and etc etc.. Even a little change for the worse just seems 'unacceptable' to many.
But in my case, I've learned some time ago that the word 'unacceptable' is a really really powerful word, and should not be used without hesitation.
-
It's ridiculous that we can have 180 degree rear view at the same time as having to put up with "correct" front views - btw I have yet to see anyone other than the management put forward the view that the current front views are correct.
The struts and frames look as if they are viewed from outside the cockpit looking forward - as many have commented - and not as if your pov is from within the cockpit.
The 190 forward view needs to be changed and the same mistakes should not be carried over to other "redone" a/c.
-
Originally posted by MANDO
Pongo, it is not a matter of how good the frontal view is when you have an eye at the gunsight. It is about the overal lack of visibility that makes it almost impossible to track enemy planes when turning.
I would add that current 190F8 and D9 have lost the bubble canopy, internally both have the same vertical space as A8 and A5. So, even the advantage of better over the nose visibitily raising the head is gone.
Amen !!!
CHECKERS
-
Originally posted by TDeacon
I should probably start another thread requesting a speed-up of the "move" commands. That would probably help some.
I second that. I use this all the time and speeding it up will help a lot.
-
I like the new cockpits & the 190 a5 is my favourite luftwffe plane,it still is!;)
-
"Move" thread started at http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=148696
-
Originally posted by Nath_____
That's awesome. This will be the only air-worthy original Fw 190. I wonder where it will be flown?
That is incorrect.
FHC has an original FW190A5 that is about ready to take to the air.
-
Last I heard WNr 0 151 227 is not going to be restored with a BMW801 engine. It will certainly look authentic from the outside though!
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, does your foundation own Weiße Eins or are you restoring it for a Norwegian museum? I know we have a 190 in Texas for engine restoration (IIRC).
-
We own "Weisse Eins" and several other FW-190's. "Black 3" is being restored for a Norwegian Museum.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Thanks.
-
crump, whats your email?
-
email addy removed.
-
I hereby dub the FW A8 unflyable in its current form.
And its not so much the side supports (which I still think are just a tad bit too thick) as much as it is the brace on top that kills the view. Unless something is right in front of you or right above you. you cant see watermelon no matter the head position.
Again I find it impossable to beleive that the visability was THAT bad.
The dementions may be accurate but I dont think the pilots perspective is.
-
Cant you just move the head around on your own?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Cant you just move the head around on your own?
Yes but no matter what position you put the head the view doesnt improve at all
-
Hmmm even if you move in closer to the site?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Hmmm even if you move in closer to the site?
Are you systematically asking, or have you already tested that? Just try it, and then try to track an enemy that is at your hi 12, turning with you...
I vote for the previous canopy frontal framing or similar with the current cockpit (control panel) system. From outside, the plane would look just the same except closer than 50 yards (even at 50 yards it looks the same).
Of course, in combat if would look the same even at 1 yard, no one looks at the frontal framming of the enemy plane during a HO.
-
Yes even with my head closer to the site.
I dont see what the inside frame has to do with the way the plane looks on the outside. Arent they two different peices of artwork?
-
Personally I dont agree that its gone from bad to worse.
The Ki84 framing is a little thick but ok, biggest problem I have with this cockpit is that the frameing looks totally 2D. The metal looks to be razor thin.
Cockpit Rating: Ok.
The P38s rock. They imho are spot on after the move of the armour glass of the G model.
Cockpit Rating: Good.
190s I have to agree here they HAVE too thick framing. So thick that it basicly makes it horribly bad.
Cockpit Rating: Bad.
Tex
-
In my case; at least; Track IR has solved nearly all the problems you guys are talking about.
OTH; the Track IR 6 view; while being very realistic; has ruined the Jug and the Tiffy for me. It really makes one appreciate why Jugs (amongst others) had an exterior rear view mirror.
-
190s I have to agree here they HAVE too thick framing. So thick that it basicly makes it horribly bad.
This would be fine if the FW-190 cockpit was rated as bad by those that tested in WWII.
In fact it had one of the best cockpits of any WWII fighter. It's visibility for both sighting view and search view were praised by every nation that flew one.
All the best,
Crumpp