Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on November 23, 2005, 03:58:44 PM
-
There has been much talk of late regarding the 3D models of the cockpits in AH and whether they favor one aircraft or another aircraft. What I'd like to see in this thread are photo's of real cockpits and then below that screenshots, posed and positioned so as to best duplicate the photographer's position, of the aircraft in Aces High.
We should probably limit the aircraft looked at to the Aces High 2 standardized aircraft. So show the Ki-84's cockpit, but not the A6M5's cockpit. I'll start off with the Spitfire's cockpit.
Here is a photo Charge posted recently of a Spitfire's cockpit:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/SpitBW.jpg)
And here is an in game shot of a Spitfire's cockpit, cropped to about the same width and positioned about the same:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/SpitAH.jpg)
-
Hey Karnak,
Are the armoured glass side supporting bars on the AH model too thin at the top?
Is the bottom frame on the armour glass missing as well?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The AH pic looks a bit more zoomed in & sitting a bit lower than the real pic
-
Do I read right the flaps are limited at or bellow 130 knots IAS?
That would be 150mph instead of 175mph which we have now.
-
Spit did not have incremental flaps AFAIK.
They were either fully up or fully down and operated by compressed air. Not a very combat useful flap set up.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Ty Karnak, I'd like to comment the Spit cockpit, as you have been kind enough to present those pictures for comparison, and I have been "un"kind enough to bring this particular case up.
Firstly: from that point the in-game picture does not seem as "off" as I thought it is, but there are some features which I'd like to point out.
The most critical part: The armoured windshield and its shape and size.
In original picture I'm not sure if that is the "sight-line" picture or if the view is slightly too low. Even from that angle the armoured glass is actually less in height than it is in width for abt. 22%, where as in present model the widshield is almost exactly as high as it is wide. So if we could move the view point slightly higher in original to match the model sight line the height/width percentage would be even higher to indicate less visibility in vertical plane.
The outer vertical framing in the model is correct but the windshield should actually look less wide from the upper part than from lower part even if perspective is taken into account. So the vertical supporting bars are not even but thicker from the upper part (not caused by perspective), as is seen from the original, too.
The outer framing is a bit too high from the upper part and in original does not give a very good view forward-up (as in keypad views). The Spitfire had actually a rather low profile cockpit...
The original does not have the hood closed but the framing in Spitfire's hood is done very well as, AFAIK, it does not really considerably increase the area the outer framing blocks from the view. Of course, in some models there is the mirror and the locking mechanism for hood, which brings strange looking clamps that further obstruct the view, but I don't think such details need to be added -to any aircraft. But a functioning mirror would be great in Spit, wouldn't it?
PS. It is incredible how almost every picture from Spitfire's cockpit is of the gauges and very very few of the actual gunsight view which I think would be more valuable to see and know than a few gauges which are usually the same in every a/c of that type...
PPS. Would it be difficult to get permission to put a hand and a digi-camera inside any a/c in any museum and provide this community a few precious and rare pictures of the actual gunsight views of these a/c?
PPPS. I hope I can be of assistance and provide some of the pictures needed in this thread. It would be nice to see Lavochkin c-pit pictures, too.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
They were either fully up or fully down and operated by compressed air. Not a very combat useful flap set up.
But is very useful in AH environment.
25mph is enormous when you combat planes like ki-84 or Zeros. It gives spit an undeserved advantage over some turners.
Planes like ki-84 have real combat flaps and unexplained limit of the exact same 175mph.
Furthermore, think of 109 series...
-
Karnak,
I think there is a logical flaw in your proposal. Even if they match side-by-side, you are ignoring the "fisheye lens" view we have in AH, which exagerates the blocking effect of a given width of canopy bar. The AH canopy bars need to be a bit thinner to compensate for this.
There are other reasons as well, and many of them have to do with the difference between a small square 2-D monitor screen and what you can actually do inside a real cockpit (example, the slow speed of the "move" commands compared to how quickly you can shift your head from side to side in real life).
Therefore slightly thinner canopy bars may well be more realistic in terms of "net effect". This ties in with the fact that there is more to the game than just sitting in the cockpit, looking straight ahead, and thinking that it looks just like a picture one took from a real cockpit.
Therefore, I would hope that the LW enthusiasts, instead of urging HTC to ruin the allied cockpits, would instead urge HTC to thin the bars on the LW cockpits. The desired relative visibility between Allied/LW would still be achieved, but without damaging the ability to see, and shoot at higher angle-off. (I used to fly the FW-190A5 a lot before the new cockpit, and now no longer do so due to the horrible view).
This second edit is directed at Crump, who I know is a LW enthusiast... :-)
-
Would it be difficult to get permission to put a hand and a digi-camera inside any a/c in any museum and provide this community a few precious and rare pictures of the actual gunsight views of these a/c?
I will be filming the cockpits of the following aircraft next week:
P40
Hurricane
Spitfire Mk IX
Bf-109E
Corsair
Maybe the P51D if the maintenance is complete.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
lol - man, this is getting funny -
all the arguments about having all the flaps and performance set to "documented" references....then asking to make a concession made on the GE cockpits because "I can't see, the bars are too thick"
Sorry folks, but the 190s and 109s had some major differences as compared to the US 51s and the Brit spits...
Hopefully the pics will reach....
Look at the size of the pilots in realtionship to the cockpit...especially on the 51 pics versus the 109 pics....you can see how small the 109 pit actually was. - and how thick the windsheild frame was.
(http://www.dangreve.com/51.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/512.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/513.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/516.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/517.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/51b2.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/51b3.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/51b6.jpg)
-
(http://www.dangreve.com/1902.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/1903.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/1092.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/1093.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/1094.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/1095.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/1096.jpg)
-
(http://www.dangreve.com/spit1.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/spit2.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/spit3.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/spit4.jpg)
-
all the arguments about having all the flaps and performance set to "documented" references....then asking to make a concession made on the GE cockpits because "I can't see, the bars are too thick"
Hey Waffle,
I don't see any reference to LW plane cockpits in this thread. Karnak simply posted a picture of the spitfire cockpit asking if it appeared correct.
I for one think they should be modeled accurately. I am not bothered by the Focke Wulfs cockpit in AH. Certainly will check it against ours when it's complete.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
It's all over other threads, you should know that as well as I do....
'and it was mentioned in this thread as well.
From Tdeacon...
"Therefore, I would hope that the LW enthusiasts, instead of urging HTC to ruin the allied cockpits, would instead urge HTC to thin the bars on the LW cockpits. The desired relative visibility between Allied/LW would still be achieved, but without damaging the ability to see, and shoot at higher angle-off. (I used to fly the FW-190A5 a lot before the new cockpit, and now no longer do so due to the horrible view)."
Not knocking anybody or anyone's post....
Have fun filming the C-pits - sounds like an enjoyable day.
-Waffle
-
Have fun filming the C-pits - sounds enjoyable.
Been planning it for a while, ever since I located the aircraft and read the RAE evaluation.
Thought I would include it in comparision so readers could form their own opinion.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Flugwerk FW-190 A8 :cool:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3cFA%3eJaws/bar.jpg):cool:
I like the FW-190 pit in AH. After flying FW-190 for few years in Il-2 and FB+AEP+PF, heck AH Foke Wulf cockpit is like a mustang for me.:lol
On the other hand I'm not afraid to engage any aircraft I meat in FB when I fly FW-190.
-
I still say the P38G's armored windscreen is slightly too low also... if picture hanger was up, I'd post some pics.
-
Crump,
It looks to me like the inner side of the framing should angle inward while the outer edge goes pretty much straight up leading to thicker framing at the top. It should also be shorter than it is in AH by maybe 20 to 30%. Other than that the AH Spit cockpit is pretty close visibility wise.
I look forward to seeing your cockpit shots.
Debonair,
I tried to match the size and position as best I could. It isn't perfect, but I think it is close enough to give an idea.
Charge,
You're welcome. I agree with your take on the differences. It is closer than I thought it was going to be too.
As to the mirrors, I don't think they would be very useful really as the gave such slight warning and in the wideangle (default) view an enemy aircraft would be about 3 pixels at 1600x1200 when he opened fire.
TDeacon,
I used the zoomed in view for the in game Spitfire shot, so no wide angle lense there. It should all match as the "zoomed in" view is actually just a correct view based on the field of view offered by a monitor.
-
Karnak
Zoomed-in view is adjustable over a range; assume you mean you were zoomed in all the way? I suppose I need to measure the degrees of arc in the full-zoomed view to determine the degree to which the "fisheye lens" effect is still there.
In any case, however, my overall argument still seems valid, as even if the exagerated effect of framing is reduced in full-zoom, it is a special case. The shape of the 3-D model affects all magnifications in forward view. Also, consider the head-movement differences between AH framing and real-life framing, etc., as I mentioned previously.
I think this is not just a visual issue, but a game-play issue as well. For this reason, we should aim for accuracy tempered for "net effect", rather than accuracy of a particular element taken out of context. I think the game is better, to the extent that it allows players to build special skills in various (reasonably realistic) areas to overcome odds. Deflection shooting skill is one such area, which helps allow one to overcome odds disparities typical in the MA. If such improvements were not possible, then the outcome would be mostly a function of the size of the horde one is flying with. This makes the game boring.
-
Two words: focal length
Grunherz made the same mistake a few years back.
-
I think the cockpits are fine. HTC is doing a great job of getting it real close.
Remember guys...Good enough is good enough, where as perfect is often a major pain in the prettythang, and not worth the trouble anyway.
-
I agree HTC is doing a good job with the cockpits.
I particularly like the way they appear to have backed off from the overly-restrictive framing style of the FWs, when doing the later P-51s and Spits. All I am doing is arguing against reversing this trend, as some posters to this thread seem to prefer the restrictive FW cockpit style (for some unknown reason).
-
TDeacon,
How far you need to be zoomed in to make it have no wideangle or narrowangle effect depends to some extent on the size of your screen. I made that top shot on a 21" monitor so I should not be zoomed in as much as somebody using a 19", 17" or, heaven forbid, a 15" monitor.
Basically I just tried to match the photo as best I could and then cropped it. I think it came out pretty close. The real Spit's gunsight sits lower than the AH one, the framing gets thicker towards the top of the armored glass on the real one, the armored glass are is smaller vertically and the top framing curves around and down faster on the real one. Overall it is pretty close, but with some room for improvement.
I don't think they should move away from doing cockpits like the Fw190's. If the cockpit did have framing that thick then it should in the game too. I think the more accurate the framing is the better.
FUNKED,
I don't follow. Could you describe the effect you're talking about?
-
Karnak,
Almost certain that monitor size has nothing to do with perspective shown in the game, but just with the size of the image. I seriously doubt HTC crops (or otherwise modifies) screen image based on monitor size.
With respect to "accurate" framing, if I understand what you are saying, you prefer the framing to "look like" a picture of the real thing. I define "accurate" more broadly to include the effect on game play, as I like AH as a game, and not merely as a graphical exercise.
(I appologize in advance for the following digression)
It all depends on what we each mean by "accurate". To take an example from another hobby area, some people think that an "accurately" colored model of a real object must match the color of paint samples from a real object. In a broader context, this is not necessarily so, due to the concepts of "scale color" (lighter with scale distance), and "relative color" (brain evaluates colors based relative to adjacent colors).
-
TDeacon,
Don't be absurd. Of course they don't.
What I was saying is that which level of zoom in actually displayed a correct image for eliminating the wideangle effect depends on your monitor size. The smaller your monitor the more you need to zoom in to have the image be the correct size.
-
"Remember guys...Good enough is good enough, where as perfect is often a major pain in the prettythang, and not worth the trouble anyway."
And what would FW190 framing look like if there would not have been people not satisfied in it? It would be a real pain in the prettythang for FW drivers like myself.
-C+
-
We do not take liberties with cockpit framing. Either we messed up a frame, or not. The pictures should match the screen shots if they are taken from the same view. But with the distances we are talking about very small changes in camera position can make things look drasitcly different.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Two words: focal length
Grunherz made the same mistake a few years back.
I thought your resoning back then was that a 2d picture could never replicate the unique perspective of AH and that they cant be used for direct comparsion no matter what...
:rolleyes:
-
Waffle BAS:
All tho0se pictures show is that P51D had a big bubble that streched va few feet bedind the pilots rear head armor. There really isnt much difference in width between P51D cockpits and 109 cockpits, the 51 is just a few inches wider.
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with your pictures, especially the spitfire ones... Cockpit size has nothing to do with visibility.
Heck even british pilots said the fw190 had a better view thanm spitfire.
-
Here are some screenshots and comparisons of photos presented earlier in this thread about P-51 and 109 with Erla haube.
Comparing the approximate widths of the side frames to pilots' faces. It see3ms that the 109 side frame is about the same width, maybe even slightly more narrow.
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/p51_109_side.jpg)
This is how it is currently in AH2. They seem pretty even.. 109 may seem a bit wider.
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/p51_109_side_ah.jpg)
Notice how in th eview from inside the side frame is a lot more restrictive in 109. The thickness inside the cockpit plays a big role... maybe the p-51 had so little thickness, I dont know. What is more interesting here is marked with A and B. Compare the windshield frames!!! Then look at the next picture with the same frames from outside...
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/p51_109_frames_ah.jpg)
...they are about equal from outside!!! How can this be? ...look at next picture.
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/p51_109_frames_ah_out.jpg)
In p-51 these frames are transparent from inside :D They are visible only from outside. I suppose the outer canopy polygons are defined 1-sided so the texture is shown only on the outer side of the surface.
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/p51_1sided.jpg)
-
There was not actually much changed in the new 109 compared to the old one. The areas marked with red were visible in old 109, now they are thicker. The general impression just seems much more restricting... maybe partly because of teh darker colors (almost black)
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/109_new_old.jpg)
The above mentioned 1-sided polygon approach could actually be used to compensate the lacking light refraction phenomena in thick armoured glasses... like in the 109 windshield. COmpare the photos and game screenshots.... straight ahead... (frames appear about 1/4 thinner in real life)
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/109_ref_straight.jpg)
... and slightly from the side (about 1/3 thinner in real life)
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/109_ref_diag.jpg)
I honestly think that even this slight change would mean a lot with e.g. deflection shots. With longer distances the thicker appearing frames make a bigger difference since the larger hidden angle hides more and more area.. and planes.
Therefore the 1-sided polygon approach could be fairly easily utilized to the 109 windshield frames. They would still appear the same from outside, but they would appear thinner from inside. Could this be done, please?
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/109_suggestion.jpg)
-
on the below X-sections - purple line is the 109 cockpit / inst panel with the red being a guestimate at where the adjustable seat would be...the blue lines on the 51 are the cockpit / panel. Green lines are the 109 canopy.
You can easily see that the pilot in the 51 would be farther back from the front winsheild than the 109 pilot. That is going to translate to stuff looking thinner due to the futher distance of the virtual eyepoint, or thicker when closer. Also a good illustration at how much more room the 51 pilots had compered to the 109.
(http://www.dangreve.com/51109.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
You can easily see that the pilot in the 51 would be farther back from the front winsheild than the 109 pilot....
Eh? The windshield begins from the bend. In your lower pic they are about 4-5 pixels apart at the top of the windshield. Certainly the bottom of the p-51 windshield goes further away, since it is in a more shallow angle. Still that is no explanation to the viewed difference from inside. The p-51 windshield frames just happen to be modeled transparent from inside in AH2.
Sorry, but IMHO, your pics give no reasonable grounds for the huge difference in the windshield frame width between AH2 p-51D and the 109:s.
btw. both of my screenshots were taken from as far back in the cockpit as possible.
One result from that roomier cockpit of the p51 was that pilots feet were lower than in 109.. which also meant that, AFAIK, the 109 pilots could pull some more G:s before the blood rushed to their feet than the p-51 pilots... that is without a G-suit.
-
I aligned the back of the pilots seat from the 109 on the p-51. Look at where the rails start for the 109 (green lines over the 51)
-
Oh wow, I never noticed that the front windshield view is actually wider than the top windshield view.
Hitech can this feature be modified in our 109s?
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/109_ref_straight.jpg)
-
Grunhertz,
it IS NOT wider, it only appears so from inside because of the thick glass. From outside they are equally wide. Still, IMHO, it should be tried to be modeled the way it appears. The solution I offered in the drawing above could do the trick.
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
I aligned the back of the pilots seat from the 109 on the p-51. Look at where the rails start for the 109 (green lines over the 51)
Waffle,
The bends where the windshields start or end (at the top) are very closely at same distance. The bottom parts have more distance between them, but STILL this does not explain the difference in thickness. The fact remains that those p-51 frames are not visible from inside in the game.
But what the heck.. let them be like that, I dont care. It is up to the pony fans to ask for more "realistic" frames if they want such... most likely they prefer the transparent ones ;)
I would only wish to have the same method applied to add little more visibility to 109 windshields.
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/p51_109.jpg)
-
Originally posted by BlauK
Waffle,
I would only wish to have the same method applied to add little more visibility to 109 windshields.
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/p51_109.jpg)
I would, too. Front view in 109 is really overdone and needs to be fixed.
-
Get rid of the sky blue,cessna 150 attitude indicator. Its not correct,it was not there 60 odd years ago. The artificial horizon was black with white painted inserts.