Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Urchin on August 11, 2005, 10:53:34 PM
-
Why were the cockpit bars made 15 feet wide? Makes it more than a little difficult to hit any kind of deflection shots... they are like 5 times wider than any of the other planes I've flown since I came back.
-
Not only the bars, also the canopy. 190F8 and D9 have now the same over the nose view than A5 and A8. Check this elevating your view in all modes, the higher canopy of F8 and D9 is now only artistical.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Why were the cockpit bars made 15 feet wide? Makes it more than a little difficult to hit any kind of deflection shots... they are like 5 times wider than any of the other planes I've flown since I came back.
Try the Ki84
-
Try P38G
P38 at all especialy the side views
-
Maybe you guys can get freinds at airshows and museums to mount a camera or a camcorder on a pedistal in the pilots seat at eye level for the pilot. Then rotate it 180 degrees taking pictures. Then post those here for all of us to evaluate.
I have to think the HTC art dept. has performed a similar action along with sitting in lots of cockpits before setteling on the production views released to the game.
HTC I have always wondered how you created the views. I hope I'm not making a fool of myself here.....:)
-
Originally posted by bustr
Maybe you guys can get freinds at airshows and museums to mount a camera or a camcorder on a pedistal in the pilots seat at eye level for the pilot. Then rotate it 180 degrees taking pictures. Then post those here for all of us to evaluate.
I have to think the HTC art dept. has performed a similar action along with sitting in lots of cockpits before setteling on the production views released to the game.
HTC I have always wondered how you created the views. I hope I'm not making a fool of myself here.....:)
Sooooo, which one is right then. The old or the new version? :D
edit:
Looked at some pics. Looks like the new is more accurate
-
I did try the Ki-84, I have no problem at all with those bars.
I also flew the P-47D-11 a few times, I like what they did with that. The front bar used to be huge and in the way, now it isn't that bad.
-
Also, take a look at the new 51 cockpits. The 190 canopy bars are about 4 times as thick. Deflection shooting is now almost impossible, especially from the right side.
-
I think the side bars get in the way... I haven't been able to find a view around them so far. But then, the Ki-84 is so much more fun to fly anyway...
-
If you think THIS is bad, you should have seen right when it came out! We had 1/2 the forward view as we do now!!! I think it's good enough to get kills in, but so far nothing beats the new ponies or a select few other rides.
-
The big difference is that the 190's canopy framing is 3D. The P38s, P51s and Ki-84 still enjoy the old style 2D framing allowing for better views. I wish HTC would be more consistent, either all AC have restrictive 3D framing, or none.
-
Didnt they just redo the 38's and 51's to the same standards as the 190's? If not why did they do all that work on them and not do it to the same level?
-
Grits: Yes they did redo them
Falcon: The reason we have 3D and 2D is that the planes are being redone one at a time to the newer (3D) standard. So until every last plane is remodeled (probably be a year or so) you will have some with 2D (old) and some with 3D (new)
-
looking at some pics i think the cockpit bars of the FW looks thicker.
Still it has a better view as the P38.
-
The big difference is that the 190's canopy framing is 3D. The P38s, P51s and Ki-84 still enjoy the old style 2D framing allowing for better views. I wish HTC would be more consistent, either all AC have restrictive 3D framing, or none.
They're all 3D.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Grits: Yes they did redo them
Falcon: The reason we have 3D and 2D is that the planes are being redone one at a time to the newer (3D) standard. So until every last plane is remodeled (probably be a year or so) you will have some with 2D (old) and some with 3D (new)
The P38s, P51D, Ki-84 are all remodeled to the new standard (Ki-84 being the first of the new), but their cockpits only use simple 2D framing. I guess the polygons were needed someplace else on the model. I however would prefer equality in cockpit modeling instead of a more refined exterior shape.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
They're all 3D.
No the framing is not. They're just made up of a 2D polygon mesh. It's like the framing is just painted on a glass canopy.
-
Incorrect. They all have 3D frames. It's just that the 190s in real life have very thick frames. Hell, they were modeled off of real dimensions, I bet. But other aircraft have thinner frames and so forth.
-
No they don't. Just look at them fer christ sake. Move your view sideways and you'll see they have no mass, just two surfaces like a sheet of paper.
-
I think Krusty was speaking of the way AH cockpit are made , a contrario to WB or IL2 they are full 3D.
The fact the bar in the 51 have no thickness is not related to the way AH is implement the cockpit.
I just checked , your assertion is false , the frame have thickness enought or not I don't know.
-
Toldja.
They're all 3D.
-
Kweassa you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying the cockpit models aren't 3D. I'm saying the canopy framing aren't actually 3D as in solid objects.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1124406599_190.jpg)
Here's our Dora. You can see the bars are solid 3D objects.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1124406572_p51.jpg)
Here's the Pony. Notice how the bars have no width if viewed on edge.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1124406556_p38.jpg)
Same with the P38. The framing is just a 2D "paper" mesh.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1124406518_ki84.jpg)
Same with the Ki-84.
-
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p38-17.jpg)
u got a point dough that bar on the fw is much thicker not to be left flat.
-
Common guys. True that the FW190 canopies are much thicker than the new 51s. I wish they would thin them, because I used to like FWs. However, why ask HTC to ruin the 51s too. Better to have some canopies where you can deflection shoot than none.
If all canopies are made like FWs, and deflection shooting is made more difficult for all planes, it just makes it harder to get quick kills against maneuvering targets, and therefore harder to survive when fighting against superior numbers. Just speaking for myself of course, but this would ruin the game for me, as I always fly alone.
-
"noooo dont ruin teh framing cuz cant shoot with my current L337 deflection kills"
:rofl
PS im all for "real" cockpits...
-
So 190 is made better as it has the only true 3D framed cpit?
Its prolly an equalizing factor as it would else totally pwn at MA...
:D
-C+
PS. I'd really like to see those frames modelled in other planes, too.
-
I agree that the "real" canopies should be modelled and bustr's idea is good. but whatever is done should be done across the board equally.
-
1K3, if you ever need to learn English, I can recommend a good mail order course... :-)
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
looking at some pics i think the cockpit bars of the FW looks thicker.
Still it has a better view as the P38.
Well Bug, the 190 was known for it's exelent all around view. One of the many good things commented on in the RAF report.
The P38, was afaik, not very well known for good views, more the opposit if anything.
It had lots and lots of bars in the cockpit, even the later versions.
The 190, early versions had exelent all around visbility, not to mention the later bubble conpy versions. 190 is one of the most difficult planes to look forward in.
-
Originally posted by TDeacon
Common guys. True that the FW190 canopies are much thicker than the new 51s. I wish they would thin them, because I used to like FWs. However, why ask HTC to ruin the 51s too. Better to have some canopies where you can deflection shoot than none.
If all canopies are made like FWs, and deflection shooting is made more difficult for all planes, it just makes it harder to get quick kills against maneuvering targets, and therefore harder to survive when fighting against superior numbers. Just speaking for myself of course, but this would ruin the game for me, as I always fly alone.
Why is it better to have a few planes made easy to shoot in and a few planes more difficult to shoot in? Don't you think this is "unfair" to some people who enjoy flying some planes more then others? Can you imagine the outroar if the P51 forward visbality would be as bad as the 190's?
Better to have all canopies made as real as possible.
-
Im not complaining Wilbus, i just do with what i have.
If other planes have a better view thats their luck.
But nothing to complain about the view in a FW.
btw the real p38 had a rearview mirror,
Im not even complaining about that but it would give a instant rear view. not totaly dough.
-
Rgr Bug I know you're not.
But can't really ignore the pics Falcon posted. Kind of weird, specielly since the Pony's are just remade.
All planes should be made acording to same standards and I doubt the planes with good 3D cockpits will have those removed (I hope they won't be removed). But I hope the ones with what seems to be 2D bars are remade (again).
Also, as stated above, buble canopy 190's head view can now only be raised as little as in the A versions.
-
Wilbus, check also the bubble canopy of D9 and F8, it is also gone. Both has now the same canopy (internal size) as A5 and A8. So, any potential advantage for F8 to fire its new rockets with some over the nose extra view is gone :huh
-
In RL the 'blown canopy' didn't allow for more top head room so that you could see 'over the nose'.
The widened or 'blown' canopy was added for the purpose of improving the pilot's side-forward visibility, important during fighter-bomber missions. The pilot could lean left or right and see down forward. It had nothing to do with 'over the nose'.
http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/Canopy2.jpg
At most it added 3 or 4 inches of head room if that. After all the front over head frame didn't change.
http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/Canopy1.jpg
Here's a side view, what isn't apparent in these images is bulge in the sides.
Not every F-8 and D-9 had the blown canopy any way...
-
Quite wrong Wotan.
It is quite apparent the noticeable gain in vertical space as is clearly shown in these pictures.
And our F8 and D9 have both blown canopy, so they should have more vertical space than A8/A5.
The difference between A8/A5 and F8/D9 was clear before the 190 art rework.
-
Unstrap that harness to look over your nose :) Don't make any quick moves though if someone is on your 6, or you'll knock yourself out.
-
Originally posted by MANDO
Quite wrong Wotan.
It is quite apparent the noticeable gain in vertical space as is clearly shown in these pictures.
And our F8 and D9 have both blown canopy, so they should have more vertical space than A8/A5.
The difference between A8/A5 and F8/D9 was clear before the 190 art rework.
No you are wrong...
What that image shows is only 3 inches max.
What the 'blown canopy' did was create a bulge in the sides that allowed pilots better vision down-front when looking to the sides. This allowed them to be able to locate and identify targets.
Part of their tatics (Steckrübenverfahren) were to fly low (about 1000m) in line abreast keeping the target low right. Then they turned to target in line astern and dropped the nose low for speed. They would then pop up to 1200 - 1500m and line up on target. They used a standard gunsite, they didn't need to 'see over the nose' to drop bombs or fire their rockets.
(http://www.schlachtflieger.de/Steck.jpg)
Post any pic of a pilot in a late war 190 with a blown canopy and compare the pilot's head position with any early canopy. The pilot didn't sit higher in his seat because of the blown canopy.
You 100% wrong. What you had in AH prior to to the 190 fix was just wrong as well. The pilots didn't jack their seat up nor could they slide out past the canopy glass when looking over the sides.
Not all D-9s and F-8s had a blown canopy anyway.
-
Wotan -
You seem to have a lot of info on the GE planes. You wouldn't happen to have any VERY good pics of 109 cockpits, close up details, ect.....
Dimensional drawings, manual refererence, ect.... of a whole or individual components?
-
You wouldn't happen to have any VERY good pics of 109 cockpits, close up details, ect.....
Dimensional drawings, manual refererence, ect.... of a whole or individual components?
No I sure don't, I am not much into modeling so I never made a point at keeping such stuff.
I would reccomend you ask on these forums though:
Air Warfare Forum (http://www.airwarfareforum.com/index.php)
109 Lair Forum (http://www.network54.com/Forum/257037)
LEMB (http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/)
AAW2 (http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums/index.php?act=idx)
AAW2 is Butch's forum and requires registration to view/post.
Good luck, I am looking forward to the updated 109s...
-
True enough Wotan that the blown canopy in the 190 didn't create much more space in the vertical, the 190 already had quite much frmo the beginning, however, 3 inches would make a clear difference.
I doubt all other planes in AH that can have head raised to the top of the canopy could have that possition in real life. Just hope they will all be remodelled for the best.
-
Wotan, 3 inches is more than enough to aim and fire the PB rockets. They added that vertical space for a reason, else they would be adding only more drag for free and that would be quite stupid.
To raise my head 3 inches I dont need to raise my seat. Of course, unstrapping the harness is also not necessary.
-
Snip of the RAF report on the Fw 190 A3 normal hood.
"Low Flying
The good all-around view from the aircraft, particulary over the nose, makes the Fw 190 very suitable for low flying and ground strafing. ...
The armament is good and well positioned, and the ammunition capacity should be sufficient for any normal fighter operation. The sighting view is approximately half a ring (of deflection) better than that from the Spitfire.
The all-round search view is the best that has yet been seen from any aircraft flown by this unit."
It doesn't have a good over the nose view in AH.
Not whining here, just saying.
Like I said before, hopefully all planes will be updated the "right" way with 3D cockpit bars etc.
-
Urgh to hell with it, it is what it is.
I still love flying the 190. Just require even more skill then it did before.
-
Wotan, 3 inches is more than enough to aim and fire the PB rockets. They added that vertical space for a reason, else they would be adding only more drag for free and that would be quite stupid.
To raise my head 3 inches I don't need to raise my seat. Of course, unstrapping the harness is also not necessary.
They didn't fire rockets by looking over the nose. The used the standard gun site.
Drag was insignificant.
Hauptman Erhard Jähnert Staffelkäpitan of 2./Schlachtgeschwader 3 flying the 190F-8 over the Kurland Bridgehead describes rocket attacks against soviet armor.
He states that the rockets had a trajectory similar to the Mk 108 in that the rockets arced and at a range of 600m would hit almost centered in his gun site. He never mentions rising up in his seat, or that the new 'blown canopy' allowed him to see 'over the nose'.
He destroyed 25 Soviet tanks while flying the FW 190F-8 over Kurland:
On 16 February 1945, I attacked enemy armor in my Focke Wolf 190. It had already gotten quite close to our main line of resistance in foggy weather about 10 kilometers southeast of Tukkum.
Three of my comrades closed up with me when I designated the target. We dove on the group of armor and fired our rockets. I was fortunate enough to knock out three enemy tanks in three passes. Three more were crippled by my comrades. Since I expended my rockets, I tried to destroy the remaining tanks, which had already turned back, with my on-board weapons...
Wilbus,
No game that I know of (AH2, WB3, IL2/FB) model the 190 with good 'over the nose view'. In the case of Il2/Fb and AH2 the canopy frames are thick and large and impair vision, especially forward vision dramatically.
The head positions in the AH1 190s were overly generous (and in a lot of other planes). You could move left or right and almost shift out through the glass. The same with seeing over the nose. You could rise up almost a foot then slide forward.
The only real issue with the AH2 190s are the thick canopy frames, not 'over the nose view' imho...
-
Like you said wotan, overly generous, like almost all other planes in AH, even the new remodelled ones.
They should all be modelled after one standard.
In my quote above it states that the over the nose view of the 190 was actually a bit better then in the Spit. Spit is far superior in AH as it is now (hopefully not after they have been remade).
And yes I agree, over the nose isn't that much of a problem, it's the bars that cause the problem. However wether the bars are realistic or not I can't say, will have to compare with pictures.
What I find odd is as posted above in the pics, the 190 has 3D bars which is nice, most other planes, even the ones just remodelled don't.
-
Found a good picture of the 190 cockpit in the book "Focke Wulf Fw190 in Combat" by Alfred Price.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/267_1125324489_cockpit.jpg)
-
Here's the link to the past discussions about this subject, when the 190s first appeared.
There, you can see what it looked like in the initial release. Pages 2 and 3 would contain some material you would be interested in.
past discussions... (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146565&highlight=cockpit+bars)
This is the analysis I did in that thread..
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/232_1112174930_190again.jpg)
.. and I think current 190 cockpits have even better visibility compared to the mockup I made. Frankly, I don't really see what's supposed to be so wrong about it...
-
It is quite obvious that higher canopy would allow him to have better over the nose view. And it is quite logical that the only reason to increase the heigh of the canopy was just to improve the over the nose view.
Originally posted by Wotan
He states that the rockets had a trajectory similar to the Mk 108 in that the rockets arced and at a range of 600m would hit almost centered in his gun site.
Try that with the PB1s and .target 600 and see the current results.
-
I would say a point is proven the bars are to thick.
-
VV Bug, I like that it is 3D though, compared it to the Ki84 today and the 190 cockpit is far superior when it comes to feeling.