Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on December 29, 2005, 08:27:57 PM
-
Back when AHII came out those of us luftweinie pilots complained about the views, and the forward view in particular of the 190s.
This in the end was fixed (TY HTC)
Now we are faced with the exact same problem with the 109s.
And their similarly crappy forward view.
On looking at some of the pictures from the outside I first thought they were right. from the outside it looks as if that large thick forward crossmember blocking the view
But tonight I found some other better views of this aircraft which to me indicate definitively that the current forward view out of the 109's is all wrong and they should have at the very least better views then the currently do
Note that crossmember thickness isnt nearly as thick looking from the inside as it looks from the outside and is actually thinner then most of the guages dispite the fact that the crossmember is closer to the camera then the guages are and thus would appear larger then it would if photographed at the same distance
(http://www.taphilo.com/jg26/inthe109.JPG)
(http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/photo/planes/bf109/mersu_kuomu.jpg)
(http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/photo/planes/bf109/mersu_ohjaamo3.jpg)
Also note the guages themselves are easier to read.
there is much more contrast between the light numbered/lettered part of the guages and the black background.
And from the looks of the plane in the second pick those parts look to be original and are probably faded and yellowed somewhat by age (Happens to white things over 60+ years) and are probably in less contrast then the freash from factory originals
(http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/photo/planes/bf109/mersu_ohjaamo7.jpg)
Other photos can be found here
http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/photo/planes/bf109/cockpit.html (http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/photo/planes/bf109/cockpit.html)
HTC, please. It bad enough the 109's flight charactoristics has been dummied down somewhat.
But respectfully. Can we at least have them have a better view?
-
:aok
Hope this gets addressed, not just for the MA but I think part of ToD's success or failure could depend on it.
-
Ahh.. pics 2, 3 and 4 are so familiar... (My avatar is from that G-6/Y, MT-507 of the FiAF, can be seen live here (http://www.k-silmailumuseo.fi/)). :)
There was a lengthy thread about the 109 cockpit views in the Aircraft & Vehicles forum, AFAIK there's nothing being done about this (at least nothing has been mentioned in the news).
-
Somehow I doubt they'll fix this, considering the 109's were JUST redone :confused: I think the most we can hope to have addressed in the near future is flap deployment.
-
how much of that plane is origional? the forward glass doesnt appear to be as it looks like plexi glass glued in rather badly.
I like the 109 view we got in ah, helps to have track ir to look around the bars tho.
-
Love the 109, would love to see this fixed. :)
-
Originally posted by wetrat
Somehow I doubt they'll fix this, considering the 109's were JUST redone :confused: I think the most we can hope to have addressed in the near future is flap deployment.
The 190s were just redone (wrong) also when they were redone correctly.
If its done wrong, and it is. Why not correct it?
Another thing I noticed while flying tonight is that the nose wasnt in the way as much IRL (3rd pick down) as it is in the game where you have these two round large humps blocking your low 7:00 and 5:00 view while looking forward and from the RL cockpit view you cant see much of the nose at all. Whereas in the game its to the point of being in the way.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Another thing I noticed while flying tonight is that the nose wasnt in the way as much IRL (3rd pick down) as it is in the game where you have these two round large humps blocking your low 7:00 and 5:00 view while looking forward and from the RL cockpit view you cant see much of the nose at all. Whereas in the game its to the point of being in the way.
BINGO!
Nath and I were talking about this before. Glad someone else noticed the same thing. :)
-
Originally posted by eilif
how much of that plane is origional? the forward glass doesnt appear to be as it looks like plexi glass glued in rather badly.
I like the 109 view we got in ah, helps to have track ir to look around the bars tho.
Dont know how you can say that unless you have a masochistic streak in you LOL
With all due respect to HTC The 109 forward view is atrocious IMO
and not all of us have Track IR.
Safe bet to say the vast majority dont.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
BINGO!
Nath and I were talking about this before. Glad someone else noticed the same thing. :)
Its been something thats bothered me for a while.
Just like with the 190s it doesnt make sence that a plane would have such poor visability when a huge part of success and surviving depended on being able to see.
Particularly for a fighter.
The way it is now your practically fighting blind
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
HTC, please. It bad enough the 109's flight charactoristics has been dummied down somewhat.
You dicked yourself right there...
-
Oh come now, Dred, you're saying you wouldn't want to try to cherry pick a p51 while diving at 400mph looking out a 6x6" hole if your life really depended on it?
Funny, me neither. I still have trouble reconciling the forward views of a plane like, for instance, our 51B vs the 109s. I know the 109s were small, and cramped cockpits et al, but I think we've got an issue with scale or head position or something. Forward visibility is horrific at best.
-
there should be a transparent bar option in settings to represent sterio vision for those having these sorts of visibility problems, i have seen it in another sim and it works well, tho i dont prefer it after i stoped using the hatswitch.
tho the bars on the 109 are so thick that i bet in real life even with sterio vision it was tough, so maybe partialy transparent bars to keep it realistic.
-
As a P38G driver most of the time, I have no sympathy for you 109 view complainers at all :)
-
Originally posted by Urchin
You dicked yourself right there...
Really?
You a member of HTC under a shades account of just a mindreader so as to claim to know what their reaction would be?
No matter what I've said about the game good or bad I have always done so in the light and with the intent of being fair to everyone.
Somehow I think the folks at HTC might have been able to figure that out all on their lonesome and also know that no malice is intended by that statement.
And even if it were. Do you honestly think HTC would NOT fix something that as wrong and effects a good number of other people other then just myself simply because I said something?
I give them just a weeee bit more credit then that
IF I were HTC I'd be more annoyed at you for making that assumption then by anything I might have said
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Oh come now, Dred, you're saying you wouldn't want to try to cherry pick a p51 while diving at 400mph looking out a 6x6" hole if your life really depended on it?
Funny, me neither. I still have trouble reconciling the forward views of a plane like, for instance, our 51B vs the 109s. I know the 109s were small, and cramped cockpits et al, but I think we've got an issue with scale or head position or something. Forward visibility is horrific at best.
Actually I would think that because those cokpits were so small and cramped that would make looking out of that particular design actually easier
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
As a P38G driver most of the time, I have no sympathy for you 109 view complainers at all :)
then why did you bother to respond?:confused:
-
I think it was meant to be a friendly joke:rolleyes:
-
Those pics are so purty, you should be banned for postin' porn.
Thank you!
-
how much of that plane is origional? the forward glass doesnt appear to be as it looks like plexi glass glued in rather badly.
AFAIK 100% original. The windscreen was not that bad in 1940's it just tends to show its age like that.
-C+
-
Good post Drediock! :aok
-
why cant our 109 have a mouldy slice of orange in the lower right of the windscreen too?
-
why cant our 109 have a mouldy slice of orange in the lower right of the windscreen too?
God....I just spilled my coffee....:rofl
-
it ain't the nose is too long, its the seat is too low..
just do what i do, sit on two telephone books :)
-
DREDIOCK
I agree, on both comments, Views and FM , are porked!
also see no reason to have the 109 G10 pulled from the game in the MA, it was a neat plane .
:aok
Regards,
CHECKERS
-
Originally posted by CHECKERS
DREDIOCK
I agree, on both comments, Views and FM , are porked!
also see no reason to have the 109 G10 pulled from the game in the MA, it was a neat plane .
:aok
Regards,
CHECKERS
I don't know why they would pull any plane that was already in, unless it was a version that didn't really exist.
-
i dont mind the views...could be better...but not so horrible. Im typically a 38G driver as well, Ive learned to shoot blind a bit, so the 109s dont bug me much.
I think Guppy posted here because this thread is in general discussion forum and he was stating his opinion...think that is permitted I think.
-
Opinions, mirth, and merriment are forbidden, assuming they're not mine. Tell Dan to stick to his EZ mode planes, and to be still.
:p
-
Originally posted by zorstorer
I don't know why they would pull any plane that was already in, unless it was a version that didn't really exist.
In terms of performance, AH2 109G-10 was always the 109K-4.
All 109s were updated, with the G-10 not representing any real 109, it received the graphical update to the K-4.
By the way, I also agree that the cockpit framing is excessively thick.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Charge
"how much of that plane is origional? the forward glass doesnt appear to be as it looks like plexi glass glued in rather badly."
AFAIK 100% original. The windscreen was not that bad in 1940's it just tends to show its age like that.
Yes, I do think it's 100% original... It was last flown in 1957, I don't think they scrapped it after that and then rebuilt it for the museum.
-
fix plz
-
ok kiddos -
lets do some size comparisons and guestimations on pictures.....
Here's a good one:
So what are the Sizes of A, B and C.
Note: green grid on concrete outdoor tiles - could those be 12" square?
(http://www.dangreve.com/images/109canopy.jpg)
My guess is that C is probaby around 2 inches -
With the other two being 3 -3/4" to 4" - maybe smidge more
-
didnt they have some thicker armored glass in the front window? Its got a couple of cracks running down it, not what i would think would be used for a combat plane. Looks who ever did the refurbishing did a bad job, and who ever was storing it even worse. Looks like the frames were meant to hold a thicker peice of glass too. Anyone else got some reference pics to support the thickness of that glass? Whats the yellow on the bottom, calking?
-
Just curious...how many of the posters in this thread have sat in a 109 cockpit?
Or any of the major fighters of WW2?
Of THOSE guys that have actually sat in one of the fighter cockpits for 30 minutes or so (not 3 minutes at an airshow)... just those guys..... how many think the view out of ANY of the same cockpits in the game is "just like the real thing"?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Just curious...how many of the posters in this thread have sat in a 109 cockpit?
Or any of the major fighters of WW2?
Of THOSE guys that have actually sat in one of the fighter cockpits for 30 minutes or so (not 3 minutes at an airshow)... just those guys..... how many think the view out of ANY of the same cockpits in the game is "just like the real thing"?
All the more reason to make the views out of the planes....Viewable;)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
All the more reason to make the views out of the planes....Viewable;)
I hate to see you wasting time on this subject Drediock, nothing will change :)
-
Originally posted by Widewing
In terms of performance, AH2 109G-10 was always the 109K-4.
All 109s were updated, with the G-10 not representing any real 109, it received the graphical update to the K-4.
By the way, I also agree that the cockpit framing is excessively thick.
My regards,
Widewing
True, but then what about the Spit Vc? I realize that the Vb would be a hanger queen at that point. I still think more is better in terms of plane selection. Not everyone on here goes for the late war monsters. I usually take up a plane desgined and built in the 30's ;)
-
Originally posted by AKFokerFoder+
I hate to see you wasting time on this subject Drediock, nothing will change :)
:lol
I THINK I know what your referring to.;)
In any event.
in this case it might because the evidence that the forward view is incorrect is pretty concrete.
The 190's were fixed with less evidence.
Crossmembers are a tad too thick from the inside perspective. Im thinking they may have the angle at which they are viewed off a bit and should be trimmed Im guessing about 15%
The two humps on the nose are completely off. Its not even a close competition on that issue
Wrong size, wrong shape ,wrong position.
Look at the thid pick down in the post. slide to the right just a hair and that is the position I fly the same plane at.
What I see in the game is these two huge humps off to the sides and the nose in the center.
Where in the pick those humps are barely visable and you cant see much if anything of the nose at all. The very shape of them isnt even right.
I tried last night and cant even get a view that looks similar to that pic LOL
Finally look at the guages in the pick. The numbers are crisp good contrast against their background and fairly easy to read. Not at all unlike the american planes that were redone in the game.
In the game they are a fuzzy gray color that are hard to make out without zoooming almost all the way in.
and forget about knowing what alt Im at. I haveta guess it unless I zoom all the way in.
Wanna know how I judge my alt now?
Without zooming in?
Either Im in the air or Im on the ground.
When I see trees I know Im close to the ground.
When I clear the high cloud tops I know Im around 18K
Outside of that, Im guessing it
-
It's simple.
If struts and framework had been such an obstacle like in AH, they would have got rid of in RL in the early 30s.
-
just did a side by side comparison using the same angle as the pic was taken in the game.
Noticed more stuff
Frontmost windscreen is too narrow.
First crossmember at the top of windscreen too thick.
Front uprights angled and positioned completely wrong making them too thick and making the windscreen too narrow (width wise)
Uprights closest to the pilot too thick by about 25%
overall the cockpit looks too narrow (minor thing)
Nose itself is not visable at all in the pic yet very much visable in the game
-
Examine, if you will, the following image:
(http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/photo/planes/bf109/mersu_ohjaamo3.jpg)
Note how it seems to feel more spacious than the default AH cockpit? Wonder WHY?
Look at the perspective. The average 50mm camera lens is about as close as you can get to replicating what the human eye can see, that's why it's so common. Now compare to AH's cockpit, the lens is all out of whack.
The image: The side windows help a LOT, the cockpit is narrow at the top, so the entire instrument display is not blocking the entire 180-degree view to the front.
Note that this is VERY similar to the way the new p51s had their cockpits done. Very wide side views that are more than helpful, and a skinny instrument panel that does not block/hinder forward sight.
AH has a problem where the camera view is wrong. The actual measurements for the bars may be accurate (I believe they used actual dimensions) but the way the camera looks they are all squashed together in close proximity, which precludes actual vision to the front of the craft. Add to that the problem with bulges that should not be prominent (I think the same of the 190 series) and you have a severely limited viewpoint in the 109s when instead they ought to look like the p51s.
This *MIGHT* simply be fixed by moving head position and the view angle/position in the 109s we have now.
I think we have the same problem (to a lesser extent) with the 190s. 190s looked like 109s do now, when they first came out. The outcry was so bad that they were "fixed" to increase forward view. They're better, but I still think they're not what they should be -- they're not like the p51 cockpits, which they should be (mind you, with thicker bars).
-
I don't know how the field of view on this camera versus that of AH compare, but in trying to lineup the same shot in game in a G2, I find the rear bars (B pillar in automotive lingo, I guess) appear twice as wide in the game, and the forward view appears to be a great deal less. It looks as though the angles of the side panels are less in game, or the cockpit is narrower overall. Regardless, the feeling is claustrophobic for me, with more of a vertical view than a forward view. The apparent size of the cockpit may be due more to the scaling of the IP than the actual dimensions, but the bar structure seems insanely large.
I didn't feel that much in the flight model changed, if anything, but the lack of forward view absolutely ruined me on the LW planes. As an interesting exercise in determining scale, compare the pictures with the 109 cockpits in game, and look at the locations of switchgear and instruments. Something is definitely out of scale (or several somethings). I don't claim to be an expert in anything regarding aircraft, but in looking at the real thing, it's difficult to reconcile what we have in game, with what I see in front of me now.
-
If you move your head position back in the LW rides the bracing is less an issue. But then the gunsight is useless. The Russian rides have a similar problem in that you need to move the head position so far forward to get a useful gunsight that the gauges are pretty much off-screen and you really lose a sense of perspective. So I think it may be a combination of the head position and the gunsight size/position which is impacting this.
I cruised over to one of the IL2 fansites today to see screenshots of how they handled the cockpit framing. Not that I consider them any kind of reference, I just wanted to see the design choices they made. The Spit had really heavy framing - worse than our 109, in my opinion. Another thing I also noticed was a much better feel for looking "down" the front of the plane. There was a sense of depth which, maybe artificial, did seem more "lifelike."
-
Bah. had taken a screenshot and pointed out specifics but I cant get it uploaded right
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
:lol
I THINK I know what your referring to.;)
In any event.
in this case it might because the evidence that the forward view is incorrect is pretty concrete.
The 190's were fixed with less evidence.
You think it will be changed because of concrete evidence?
You mean just like the flaps on the 109s were changed, based on concrete evidence. :confused:
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
If you move your head position back in the LW rides the bracing is less an issue. But then the gunsight is useless. The Russian rides have a similar problem in that you need to move the head position so far forward to get a useful gunsight that the gauges are pretty much off-screen and you really lose a sense of perspective.
Here is a work-around I use. You have two forward views in AH. One is the default view, the second is the KP8 view. I set the default view back for visibility, then set the KP8 head position as far forward and up for visability of the gunsight. I also set the forward down view on the dash so I can read the gages on the new cockpits.
When you press and release KP 8 , it is like moving your head forward and back. You can sometimes see around these posts.
Gunner
-
ok here is a screenshot pick of pretty much the same angle and place as the pick 3
And the pics next to each other
(A) Note the location of the uprights. 1 arrow pointing where they are. the other pointing where they should be
(B) Nose. Shouldnt be able to see much of anything here cept a very slight hump
(C) Width of these uprights too thick
(D)- Guages barely readable
(E) and (F) Uprights again too thick (as well as being in the wrong place)
(G) could be a missing part in pic 3? Or is it another over emphasized bulge? ::Edit:: looking at the other pictues its not a missing part. its just about 10 times too big::
(H) Height too short
(http://www.geocities.com/drediock/109gfix1a1.JPG)
(http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/photo/planes/bf109/mersu_ohjaamo3.jpg)
-
Some of this has already been discussed etc. in this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=165351) .. about 1/2 way down the thread.
The front windshield is a thick armoured glass and the gaem does not take into account the refraction of light between air and glass. That is why the front vertical frames appear more narrow in real life...
Sample pics from that thread:
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/109_ref_straight.jpg)
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/109_ref_diag.jpg)
I am still amazed how many anti-109 and anti-LW people these threads always draw out from their holes. Are there really so many counterparts in some Spit or other Ally plane threds???
-
BTW, does anyone know how the 109's level flight angle is in AH? does it go along the gunsight line or along the some other line?
I think i saw somewhere a line chart showing the plane's level flight direction, gunsight and various ammo trajectories. In that chart the gunsight line was pointing downwards. The gunsight line was already some 2 meters below the level flight line at 400meters in front of the plane!!!
-
Originally posted by Krusty
AH has a problem where the camera view is wrong. The actual measurements for the bars may be accurate (I believe they used actual dimensions) but the way the camera looks they are all squashed together in close proximity, which precludes actual vision to the front of the craft. Add to that the problem with bulges that should not be prominent (I think the same of the 190 series) and you have a severely limited viewpoint in the 109s when instead they ought to look like the p51s.
"Ding Ding Ding! - winner winner! - "
AH has a 90 degree feild of view....anything close and on the peripheral sides is going to look larger......And the 109 was a small cockpit. So the surrounding cockpit from the "eyepoint" is going to be a lot closer. Closer=Bigger and the 90 degree will throw distortion on top of it.
"Ding ding ding - opps, sorry sir - we have to take away your prize..."
Comparing the 51 and the 109s cockpit and trying to get the 109 to look like the 51 is trying to make an apple outta of an orange. Completly different beast.
For grins - added the rail of the canopy lid to screenshot and jerry rigged a gunsite (didnt mess with perspective)..... EDIT- that would be "C" in Drediocks pic :)
(http://www.dangreve.com/images/jerryrigged109.jpg)
For Blauks and Drediocks drawings - check this out:
Another thing is getting fooled by the glass distortion of thickness...
the old "put a pencil in a clear glass filled water...and it looks like its broken /shifted by the water"
Prime example is this pic: Green line is the contour of the frame that continues down, but gets defracted or refrected by the glass. (excuse me if those are wrong terms)
(http://www.dangreve.com/images/mersumod.jpg)
Here are a few pics that show that that rail in the above pics doesn't just dissapear or shrink as it looks like it does in the above image, and one that i think is just cool of the pilot / gunsite. BTW the - looking into that canopy - the view sucks....rails are too thick :)
(http://www.dangreve.com/images/109a.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/images/109b.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/images/109c.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/images/109d.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/images/109e.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/images/109canopy.jpg)
-
Dred, comparing your two screenshots.
A. It does look like the uprights are to close to eachother. In the RL cockpit, they are just outside of the corners of the main gauge area, in the game cockpit they are inside the corners. Actually, to explain it different, IRL, the inside edges of the uprights line up with the edge of the main gauge area, and in game the outside edges of the uprights are to the inside of that line (not even lined up).
B. Are you sure you have the same perspective as in the RL shot? It seems to me that your perspective may be higher, which means that the bottom curve of the front windshield doesn't blank out the right MG bump. It is hard for me to compare the two though, since the IRL cockpit does not have a gunsight mounted.
C. As far as the width goes, you've got two different widths. Lets say forward width (oriented along the nose-tail axis), and side width (wingtip to wintip axis). In the in game shot, it is tough to tell them apart (at least for me. The rear uprights appear to be to thick, but that may be an illusion because of where the camera position is. Forward width on the back uprights actually appears to be to skinny, unless I'm not looking at the right line.
D. I really don't have that much truble reading the gauges in game.
E. I think the forward uprights are suffering from the same thing the back uprights are, in that it is tough to tell what is "forwards" width, and what is "sideways" width. I *think* the forward width may be to thick, by looking at the right upright compared to the left upright.
G. That is the intake, it may be missing on the RL picture, I'm not certain.
H. I think your pic is coming from a different perspective than the RL pic, which makes it look as if the cockpit is to smushed, up and down.
Overall, I think your picture may be slightly behind and above the RL picture. If you look at the brace on the rear upright, in the RL pic, that is all you can see in the upper right. In youyr pic, you can see a significant slice of the upright itself. I think the perspective in game needs to be moved forward some. If you compare the ammo count bars (i didnt even know 109s had those!) in the RL pic, they are not blanked at all by the bottom lip of the cockpit, they are in a shadow that is being cast by it. In your pic, the top of the bars are being cut off by the lip, which leads me to believe that the viewpoint is higher than in the RL pic.
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
For Blauks and Drediocks drawings - check this out:
Another thing is getting fooled by the glass distortion of thickness...
the old "put a pencil in a clear glass filled water...and it looks like its broken /shifted by the water"
THAT EXACTLY IS THE POINT!!!!!
Fooled? It is not about fooling anyone. That is like saying, dont get fooled by people wearing eye-glasses... they cannot really see well with those optically refracting devices.
It IS what people see in real life from inside of the plane. The refraction is there and works for them to see more in their front view!!!
You are also showing the windshield frames from outside from an angle where they appear the widest. That is like showing the wings from above and trying to say that they would appear so thick from the front.
-
Originally posted by BlauK
You are also showing the windshield frames from outside from an angle where they appear the widest. That is like showing the wings from above and thrying to say that they would appear so thick from the front.
I'm confused about that? Is there a view that I should show that would make them thinner?
AFAIK, I dont think theres a way to model glass distortion around edges :)
-
Yes, from inside, from the pilot's position ;)
There is a perfect way to model the refraction... in the same way as the P-51 frames have been made transparent from inside. I suggested that already in that previously mentioned thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=165351) .
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/109_suggestion.jpg)
That pic shows the frames from above. The 1-sided polygons would appear transparent from inside.... like they do in current p-51 :aok
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Dred, comparing your two screenshots.
G. That is the intake, it may be missing on the RL picture, I'm not certain.
It is not missing, check the original picture of the 109s that Dred posted, it is clearly seen as being on the plane.
The 109 intake as part of the front view is something that I think got modeled into 109s from way back, to make it "appear" more realistic. Sort of a flight sim urban myth.
-
Waffle, can you post a pic of the RL pic you added the gunsight to next to the in-game pic? It'd make em easier to compare.
-
so now would be the question:
If it can shift the rail (which it's mounted to) with what percieves to be about 1-2 inches....how much should it shift objects further out when through from an edge area?
-
Originally posted by AKFokerFoder+
It is not missing, check the original picture of the 109s that Dred posted, it is clearly seen as being on the plane.
The 109 intake as part of the front view is something that I think got modeled into 109s from way back, to make it "appear" more realistic.
Ugh, nevermind... that pic doesnt have the intake either. Even so, is the first pic of the same plane as the other two pics in the OP's pics?
If you look at Waffle's 3rd pic at the bottom of the first page (White 2), you can see a shot of the intake. It is below the MG bump on the left hand side. None of the pic's that Dred posted show it, so if all three of those are from the same plane, that would explain why you can't see it in his RL posted pic.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Waffle, can you post a pic of the RL pic you added the gunsight to next to the in-game pic? It'd make em easier to compare.
rawr - it's the same pic posted up earlier in the thread. 3rd pic - first post. or do you want me stick em together in one post?
-
Yea waffle, I know it is... only problem is trying to scroll up and down to compare the modified RL pic to the ingame pic.
-
(http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/photo/planes/bf109/mersu_ohjaamo3.jpg)
(http://www.geocities.com/drediock/109gfix1a1.JPG)
(http://www.dangreve.com/images/jerryrigged109.jpg)
-
Originally posted by BlauK
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
For Blauks and Drediocks drawings - check this out:
Another thing is getting fooled by the glass distortion of thickness...
the old "put a pencil in a clear glass filled water...and it looks like its broken /shifted by the water"
THAT EXACTLY IS THE POINT!!!!!
Fooled? It is not about fooling anyone. That is like saying, dont get fooled by people wearing eye-glasses... they cannot really see well with those optically refracting devices.
It IS what people see in real life from inside of the plane. The refraction is there and works for them to see more in their front view!!!
You are also showing the windshield frames from outside from an angle where they appear the widest. That is like showing the wings from above and trying to say that they would appear so thick from the front.
Agreeing with Blau.
I might add that no one mentioned what they looked like from the outside, except Waffle. No one argued that the braces have incorrect horizontal depth (as is illustrated in his last image, comparing the horizontal dimensions as viewed from the exterior, to the vertical dimensions Dred highlighted, as viewed from the interior). Since the horizontal depth doesn't appear in AH, I think that's a more a case of apples and oranges. I'd love to see a picture that is taken from exactly the same position as the default head position in AH, to see which differences are due to the position/angle of the camera.
You can talk to us about refraction, or tricks of light through glass, but the fact remains that what we have, doesn't look all that much like the real thing. If the refraction of the front windscreen added visibility, render that in game. However, I have trouble believing that refraction alone would increase the forward view by several inches on each side. The glass would refract light coming in at an angle, but not those rays striking it at 90 degrees. Looking in from the side, or out the right side, for instance, with your face up against the left side of the windscreen, you'd see, I imagine, significant refraction. I just don't believe (and I'm not saying I'm entirely correct) that you'd have that much of an effect from looking nearly straight on at a flat panel of glass/perspex/polycarbonate, etc.
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
so now would be the question:
If it can shift the rail (which it's mounted to) with what percieves to be about 1-2 inches....how much should it shift objects further out when through from an edge area?
Waffle,
was this about the refraction issue? If so, could you clarify, I did not follow the question :confused: (not my mother tongue :( )
-
Yup, hubs
I thing my 1-sided polygon approach would address that head leaning to side issue. The bottom of that 4-cornered frame would kind of eat away the additional view when leaning to side (from that particular side).
Is that drawing obscure, do you people get the idea or should I draw it better?
-
This is good Saturday afternoon fun....
Who's getting liquored up tonight!
Blauk - I was refering to the edges where the light / view is shifted due to the thick glass.
How useful would the area be (the edges)? How much distortion would be there? I mean - it can't be viewable area, as there is no way you could see through the rail.
as far as the 1-sided poly - that would give more viewing area.
Maybe they could do something to the texture to simulate the refraction.
:)
-
I'm trying frantically to get all of my non-incindiary posting done before I lose the ability to speak and type in English.
No, I don't think we should texture the glass. The 109 isn't the only plane that has some refractory effects in the canopy. Surely everyone worked for protective canopies that afforded decent visibility and protection. I still think that something, in perspective or the attempt to render it, is incorrect. There was a picture of a Spitfire's cockpit, and it's framework looked incredibly massive compared to ours. The 51 cockpits look to be the size of my last studio apartment, except with a far better view. I know we'll never have 100% historical accuracy, since this is a game, and I don't think giving any aircraft in it a decent field of view is a horrible thing.
Even trying to imagine huge amounts of refraction, and obscured lateral views (even though I don't think we can shift the head position around in such a way as to allow that), I still can't reconcile the real life shot, and the in-game shot. Something is wrong, I just can't say precisely what. I think you have to admit, no matter how you feel on the subject, that the 2 sets of images are different, and until we've all crawled into that little monster, we're probably going to have a hard time agreeing on what the cause of the apparent differences is.
Anyhow, I'm going to get a bottle in front of me, before I have to get a frontal lobotomy.
Happy New Years, dweebs!
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Ugh, nevermind... that pic doesnt have the intake either. Even so, is the first pic of the same plane as the other two pics in the OP's pics?
If you look at Waffle's 3rd pic at the bottom of the first page (White 2), you can see a shot of the intake. It is below the MG bump on the left hand side. None of the pic's that Dred posted show it, so if all three of those are from the same plane, that would explain why you can't see it in his RL posted pic.
Yep it's the same plane, look at the background stuff on the wall, and the wing of the plane with the allied bullseye on it. Three different shots same plane. The last picture in the original post of Drediocks show the intake on it. Like I say, we have urban legends in the flight sim world. Much of what we accept as "realistic" does not always stand up to serious investigation :)
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
This is good Saturday afternoon fun....
Who's getting liquored up tonight!
Blauk - I was refering to the edges where the light / view is shifted due to the thick glass.
...
Indeed ... got my bottle of "Jewel of Russia" in the freezer getting ready for a proper blitzing tonight.
Anyway ... I think a general re-evaluation of the cockpit model is deserved. Look at these two pictures:
AH Spit (http://hitechcreations.com/superfly/spit11.jpg)
Real Spit (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=12331)
Granted that in the "Real Spit" picture you don't have the right angle, but consider a few things:
1) Notice how close the pilot's head (you can see the goggles and helmet placed on the headrest) would be relative to the windscreen. In AH, you appear to be miles away.
2) Notice how the gunsight is basically on top of the stick - in AH it appears more like the gunsight is well forward of the stick.
3) Notice now much of the frontal glass plate is taken up by the gunsight's reflector. Compare to what we have in AH.
4) Look at the three panels that make up the front faces of the Spit cockpit, each is roughly the same area (not the same shape, but just look at the dimensions). Now in AH look how the side panels are distorted to give so much extra side view.
5) Just size up the cockpit volume in the real photo. Compare to how spacious it appears in AH.
My point here isn't that the Spit's cockpit is too good or the LW is too bad. Rather, lets try to get some kind of benchmark or rule set for what *should* be on the screen. I feel that these fighters should all look pretty cramped as seen from the driver's seat. It's probably not a popular view, but I'd be happier if all the planes had the kinds of visbility issues the 109 and 190 have - I think that'd be more realistic. But that's me.
I think there a few things going on here. One is that the placement and construction of the cockpit needs to be looked at, because some things just don't seem placed right. Next is the head position and gunsight position needs to be looked at - AH just doesn't look like the photos in this regard; and in some cases its really porked.
Lastly I wonder just what the viewing transformation is for viewing from the front view. While a 50mm lens does represent what the human eye takes in, as I recall an 85mm lens actually reflects what the human eye focuses on (which is why when you take pictures with a regular camera the thing you took a picture of ends up "smaller" than you thought it would). Maybe if the viewing angle were narrower for the front view and grew wider as you pivoted (since in other views you're scanning instead of focusing, right?).
-
Slight delay in replying: Waffle, I wasn't comparing the size or spaciousness of the P51 vs the 109, but rather the camera angles used to portray it.
Remember when the Ki84 first came out? It had as wide a view as our current p51. I LOVED it because I could see everything anywhere. However some folks didn't like it so the angle was narrowed down to current view it has now.
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
This is good Saturday afternoon fun....
Who's getting liquored up tonight!
Blauk - I was refering to the edges where the light / view is shifted due to the thick glass.
How useful would the area be (the edges)? How much distortion would be there? I mean - it can't be viewable area, as there is no way you could see through the rail.
as far as the 1-sided poly - that would give more viewing area.
:)
-------------
It is almost 1 hour past the new year here :) just about finished with the last beer. So this is a message from the future... from year 2006 to year 2005 ;)
Waffle,
the slight addition on the viewing area would not be that dramatic, since it would stay the same regardless of distance to target. Just look at the pic below and compare the green and red lines. Even a mile away my suggestion would just show an inc more of the target, so the difference becomes irrelevant.
The real difference is between the curretn view and the real refracted view. Since they are in slightly different angle, the lacking view area gets bigger the further the target is. Possibly a mile away the difference could be a whole plane's width :(
This drawing below is not in any propotion, it just presents the idea!!!
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/109refract.gif)
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Dred, comparing your two screenshots.
A. It does look like the uprights are to close to eachother. In the RL cockpit, they are just outside of the corners of the main gauge area, in the game cockpit they are inside the corners. Actually, to explain it different, IRL, the inside edges of the uprights line up with the edge of the main gauge area, and in game the outside edges of the uprights are to the inside of that line (not even lined up).
They dont just look that way. They are;)
B. Are you sure you have the same perspective as in the RL shot? It seems to me that your perspective may be higher, which means that the bottom curve of the front windshield doesn't blank out the right MG bump. It is hard for me to compare the two though, since the IRL cockpit does not have a gunsight mounted.
I tried different perspectives. That was the best overall perspective match wise I was able to get.
In order for the bottom curve to blank out the MG hub that pic would have had to have been taken near the bottom of the seat where your butt sits in the game which the RL picture obviously wasnt
C. As far as the width goes, you've got two different widths. Lets say forward width (oriented along the nose-tail axis), and side width (wingtip to wintip axis). In the in game shot, it is tough to tell them apart (at least for me. The rear uprights appear to be to thick, but that may be an illusion because of where the camera position is. Forward width on the back uprights actually appears to be to skinny, unless I'm not looking at the right line.
Im talking overall width in relation to the amount of view they block I'd agree with you that the forward width looks to skinny. But the backside looks to me to be much too thick.
Overall in balance I'd say the line drawn in corner of the game art should be moved back a hair and overall the support needs to be thinned a tad as its obvious these supports didnt obstruct the view nearly as much as they do in game
D. I really don't have that much truble reading the gauges in game.
Maybe its the textures. I cant run Hi res or my machine slows to a crawl in large fights even worse then it does now.
Still. that screenshot shows exactly how those guages look to me in the game.
I can read em. but just barely. And while I can read the dial I cant read at all if Im 0K, 10K or 20K without zooming in.
All I'd like to see is to see the areas that are gray to be made white. I doubt they were gray IRL. In fact that pic proves they werent.
I'd just like these 44 year old eyes to be able to read the guages without having to change eyeglasses LOL
E. I think the forward uprights are suffering from the same thing the back uprights are, in that it is tough to tell what is "forwards" width, and what is "sideways" width. I *think* the forward width may be to thick, by looking at the right upright compared to the left upright.
Either they are too thick or they are angled wrong. Like if you look at a length of 2X4 standing on end. if you look at it from one angle it will be thicker and if you look at it from the 2" side only it will look thinner
Looks like if the pick was centered more you would be looking more at the 2" side which would make sense as that would be how the thick glass was fitted in. Its depth (the 4" side )should be barely perceivable from the pilots seat.
Without everyone running out and getting a 2x4 you can see what I mean by taking your hands and holding them flat with your thunbs facing you and your pinkies facing away.
The depth of your fingers is barely perceivable and in no way blocks your view much more then the thickness of your hand from palmside to knuckleside. certainly the width of your hand isnt much of an issue.
Same thing with those forward uprights. Im not disputing their overall size. as not beeing accurrate to the RL dementions But rather their perspective.
Which means they should appear thinner
G. That is the intake, it may be missing on the RL picture, I'm not certain.
CC noticed that in some of the other pics somone else posted
H. I think your pic is coming from a different perspective than the RL pic, which makes it look as if the cockpit is to smushed, up and down.
Overall, I think your picture may be slightly behind and above the RL picture. If you look at the brace on the rear upright, in the RL pic, that is all you can see in the upper right. In youyr pic, you can see a significant slice of the upright itself. I think the perspective in game needs to be moved forward some. If you compare the ammo count bars (i didnt even know 109s had those!) in the RL pic, they are not blanked at all by the bottom lip of the cockpit, they are in a shadow that is being cast by it. In your pic, the top of the bars are being cut off by the lip, which leads me to believe that the viewpoint is higher than in the RL pic.
Again. its the closest overall perspective I was able to get that most closely matched the RL pic. Any lower. or higher, or more off to either side and was completely out of whack.
Trust me. I spent over 10 minutes trying to duplicate it. Which tells me the artwork is probably more off then anything. But they (HTC) is trying to accomplish a 3d type view on a 2D canvas:)
-
Originally posted by BlauK
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
For Blauks and Drediocks drawings - check this out:
Another thing is getting fooled by the glass distortion of thickness...
the old "put a pencil in a clear glass filled water...and it looks like its broken /shifted by the water"
THAT EXACTLY IS THE POINT!!!!!
Fooled? It is not about fooling anyone. That is like saying, dont get fooled by people wearing eye-glasses... they cannot really see well with those optically refracting devices.
It IS what people see in real life from inside of the plane. The refraction is there and works for them to see more in their front view!!!
You are also showing the windshield frames from outside from an angle where they appear the widest. That is like showing the wings from above and trying to say that they would appear so thick from the front.
Exactly.. or near enough anyway
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Yea waffle, I know it is... only problem is trying to scroll up and down to compare the modified RL pic to the ingame pic.
Easy way around this.
Open up a new browser window and set that one to the same site and go to where you want on the second window. Then you can just flip back and forth at will :cool:
-
Blauk - there's still a problem with that diagram.
What's you're suggesting is still "looking through metal"
There is no physical way that there would be a way to see through that rail, unless the glass was protruding infront, like a periscope. Even then you would get a distorted view.
The only way to get it "true" would be if the game had a second "viewpoint (similar to rearview mirrors in some games). Then you could bring that viewport in some to where the glass starts, or where the difference lies in the refraction.
if that makes sense...lol
-
Waffle,
the real life refraction is actually showing something "through the metal" since it goes makes theh sight go around the metal!!! Just follow the red view where the green starts and the follow the green.
The real life view is showing sky in the point where green and red meet! It is shifting the view slightly though, but like I said, the shift become irrelevant when moving further from the windshield, even to 100 yards away from it. What is 1 inch of 100 yds ...or of 1 mile?
Can you understand, that it does not really give any advantage to see an inch more of the target. The inch stays the same regardless of target distance.. it is an inch more of the target and it is not more angle in the same way as the current view is dramatically less viewing angle!!!
I am trying to say that "looking through the metal" is very close to the real situation. The current view is much much worse than in real compared to that possible slight advantage. Even that advantage could be cut away by leaving the widened view simply slightly more narrow (that above mentioned imagined "inch")
-
to much refraction and not enough drinking.
It would be the same view that is seen now....only inset a few inches closer. and maybe a slight stretching magnification of image.
-
No magnification. The glass is straight!
The main difference is in the viewing angle... in the horizontal width of the front glass!
Just think about it. You can hide an airplane or even many of them in that missing angle. But there is no way you could hide an airplane behing 1 inch.. is there?
The issue is about the principle of angle and shifting/refracting/mirroring the widest angle just a bit.
-
I still think its a problem with the perspective more then anything and the angles they were drawn in at.
Like I said before if your looking at a @x4 standing on end and your looking at the 2" side. Then the 4" side doesnt look like 4" at all but quite thinner. The more you twist or turn the 4" side to face you the larger it appears untill your not seeing mostly the 2"side and some of the 4" side but all of the 4" side and all of the 2" side which means you now have 6"s blocking your view and now 2 or 4.
THAT is where I thinkthe problem lies we're getting the full 6"s of bloackage as opposed to the 2" and a sliver of the 4" side which is probably what it should be
If you look again at the RL interior pick you can see the depth (thickness) of the glass in the right upright. But you only see that because the pic was taken slightly to the left. where as because the camera was right behind the left upright you cant see that thickness at all.
Centered you would probably see only a very small sliver of that thickness unless you had your head all the way forward.
What I beleive we see in the game and which is incorect is the full thickness of the glass at the same time as opposed to a little sliver on each side which is how it should be in otherwards the thickness of the glass fropm the pilots seat should be far less noticable and almost to the point of negligable
-
on another note. couple things which should be beyond dispute.
1- As is clearly shown in (A) in my screenshot The forward uprights are in the wrong place and too close together and should be mounted at the outer corners of the center instument panels
2- the machine gun hubs are too bulbous and too much in the way view wise.
as well as too much of the nose itself is in view and thus blocks view.
And to note in the pics below the RL pick was taken at a higher view from the in game pick (looks like someone had the same problem I did)
no matter from the higher angled pic the nose should be more prominent then in the lower angled pick, yet the reverse is true here
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/109_ref_straight.jpg)
-
I think I agree with 2) ... but maybe it also depend on the pilot-gunsight line how much of the bulges is shown. How is the gunsight line? Is it correct? Also was it really possible to see both of the bulges in the different side windows at the same time (like in that AH screenshot)?
Just one mor ething about this front glass refraction:
It is more imporrtant in planes which have/had a thick glass and thick frames because the refraction works with proprtions of the frames!!!! If teh frames are alreday narrow, the 1/3 difference would not be as big as 1/3 in wider frames (like e.g. in 109) for the viewing angle!
Now I will hit the bunk :) ..01:54
Enjoy your New Year celebrations :aok
-
Originally posted by BlauK
I think I agree with 2) ... but maybe it also depend on the pilot-gunsight line how much of the bulges is shown. How is the gunsight line? Is it correct? Also was it really possible to see both of the bulges in the different side windows at the same time (like in that AH screenshot)?
Just one mor ething about this front glass refraction:
It is more imporrtant in planes which have/had a thick glass and thick frames because the refraction works with proprtions of the frames!!!! If teh frames are alreday narrow, the 1/3 difference would not be as big as 1/3 in wider frames (like e.g. in 109) for the viewing angle!
Now I will hit the bunk :) ..01:54
Enjoy your New Year celebrations :aok
LOL Dont see how you couldnt agree with 1 also
Look for example at the left uprights in the two side by side pics. It should be to the left of the compass and well into the downward slope of the gun hub instead of up near the top
Same thing holds true for the right upright.
Each is off by several inches
-
My money is that the views won't get changed any more than the flaps will get changed. :)
-
Blauk -
The viewing angle from the front window will not change due to the bending of the light as it passes through the glass. Why? The metal canopy frame and it's construction.. It will not let in anymore light to bend to the pilots eyepoint.
Thats why when you look at the side rails from the interior - it looks thinner than it actually is. Because it is offsetting the light.
(http://www.dangreve.com/images/109consruction.jpg)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
LOL Dont see how you couldnt agree with 1 also
Look for example at the left uprights in the two side by side pics. It should be to the left of the compass and well into the downward slope of the gun hub instead of up near the top
Same thing holds true for the right upright.
Each is off by several inches
So.....you're saying the instrument panel is correct? :p
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
So.....you're saying the instrument panel is correct? :p
LMAO. No. but it is certainly much more correct then those uprights;)
-
Blauk is right. You will have an apparent view that is larger then the opening.
You will have a slight distortion from looking straight forward to the edge. The glass is also tilted back, so you will also get refraction and distortion in the other direction also. Trying to compare things seen through the thick glass, like the humps on the cowl, may not be the most accurate way to prove the opening is no right. Maybe some actual measurements will be the only way to prove this.
Happy New Year All!
Gunner
-
Originally posted by GunnerCAF
Blauk is right. You will have an apparent view that is larger then the opening.
You will have a slight distortion from looking straight forward to the edge. The glass is also tilted back, so you will also get refraction and distortion in the other direction also. Trying to compare things seen through the thick glass, like the humps on the cowl, may not be the most accurate way to prove the opening is no right. Maybe some actual measurements will be the only way to prove this.
Happy New Year All!
Gunner
Measurements or no measurments doesnt change the fact that visually those humps are not as pronounced from inside the aircraft.
also simply look at the position of the uprights in relation to both the center instrument panel and as well as those humps.
In both cases the uprights are too much in the center and should be spread out more to the right and left
But even looking at the other pictures from the outside those gun mounts are not as big vertically as they are being shown in the game where it looks like you have couple of watermelons on top there LOL
(http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/photo/planes/bf109/mersu_ohjaamo7.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
The viewing angle from the front window will not change due to the bending of the light as it passes through the glass. Why? The metal canopy frame and it's construction.. It will not let in anymore light to bend to the pilots eyepoint.
---
Yes, the angle of the view line does not change in the refraction. That is why the more visible wider angle also provides more view from outside of the glass than the current ah view. Look at 3) in the pic below. The red angle is larger than black angle! The red line is showing what is visible in the end of the green line which is MORE than what is visible at the end of the black line.
The refraction only occurs when the glass is met in an angle. When the angle gets smaller, the shift of teh view line also gets smaller. Look at 2). And if there is no angle at all, like in 1), there is no refraction.
The point is that the additional view area between the black and green line area gets wider and wider when the target is further. Also the viewing angle from the eye to the end of the green line actually GROWS (!!!) compared to the angle of the black line when getting further away.
Because green and red lines are parallel, the green line provides practically the same viewing angle with the red line in the distance! It only blocks a thin slice of the view at close distance.. the width of the shift. And when the target is also close, this shift is almost irrelevant.
I must conclude, that widening the view to the red line angle would be almost what can be seen in real life and, therefore, modeling this refraction phenomenon with the 1-sided polygon approach would not give any unfair benefits.
---
Thats why when you look at the side rails from the interior - it looks thinner than it actually is. Because it is offsetting the light.
---
It looks thinner and it also blocks the view less and it provides more outside view... which was to be proved, IMHO ;)
The difference lies between the black and the green lines.
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/109refract2.gif)
-
ok - i'm suffieciently liquored up and about to pass out....
god forbid I had to check emals...lol
Your red line is correct....but where it is dotted....needs to move to where the green line meets the edge of the framing on the outer side.
It only gives the illusiion of more outside view. the feild of view is only what the canopy frame will give you. The illusion is that it's 2" closer to you when you see the light waves coming out of the glass.
more tommorow when sober!
-
Yes Waffle,
that red dotted line is what "the suggestion" with that 1-sided polygon approach would show if it was used in AH. The combined red and green lines are what happens in real life. The red line (also the dotted line) is PARALLEL with teh green line, so the green line presents the moved dotted red line.. like yuo suggested. And the difference between black and green lines is NOT an illusion ;) It is real additional viewing area!!!
My point is that the dotted red line is practically very close to the green line and does not give any unfair advantage. On the contrary the black line (of current ah view) is very far away from the real refrected view... especially when target is further away.
The red dotted line would give advantage only when the target is very close, but it would not really matter since you could see the target already from both sides of the vertical frame.
It is much more important what happens when the target is further away... when th evertical frame can hide the target completely!
ps. I am sober alreday ;) It is early afternoon here.
-
The suggested red line and the real-refraction green line are really practically the same for view blockage.
The current black line simply hides too much of the front view.
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/109refract3.gif)
-
So the refraction from the glass being tilted top to bottom would also shift the view up, like raising the pilots head position. It may also make the horizontal bar on the top apear to be thinner.
Edit: Looking at the picture, the horizontal bar will look the same, but possibly block less view :)
Gunner
-
Really really not trying to offend.
But I think some of ya are trying to apply a $10 solution to a $2 problem.
(You wouldnt happen to be engineers would ya?;) )
All that needs to be done is those uprights thinned by maybe 10% and more importantly spread out to their proper locations.
And the gun mounts and nose shaved down
As it is now going by what you guys are talking the current available view and current blocked view are correct for the current angle and placement of those uprights IMO.
The problem as I see it is the dimensions are probably correct but the angle at which they are viewed is incorrect thus making them look too thick thus making the current blocked view larger then it should be.
As well as their placement which is definately too close together.
The forward view would be improved considerably if these uprights were simply spread out and placed where they should be as well as the gun mounts shaved down to their proper shape.
-
Dred, the frames seem to be correct when viewed from outside. Simply scaling them would ruin the outlooks :(
The solution is not difficult though. It is just moving the other side of one polygon a bit and defining another polygon as 1-sided instead of 2-sided. Possibly that latter polygon could be divided as two separate polygons.
This same 1-sided polygon thing has been used in the new P-51 model already... there is really nothing to it ;)
Most of the above discussion is really only to prove that the 109 deserves a wider view in the front windshiled.
-
Originally posted by BlauK
Dred, the frames seem to be correct when viewed from outside. Simply scaling them would ruin the outlooks :(
The solution is not difficult though. It is just moving the other side of one polygon a bit and defining another polygon as 1-sided instead of 2-sided. Possibly that latter polygon could be divided as two separate polygons.
This same 1-sided polygon thing has been used in the new P-51 model already... there is really nothing to it ;)
Most of the above discussion is really only to prove that the 109 deserves a wider view in the front windshiled.
Wouldnt the outside art be created seperate from the inside art?
I fail to see what the art on one has to do with the other.
Leave the outside art the same if that looks correct. and it probably is correct on the outside
The problem is that inside is incorrect. And in my mind there is absolutely no doubt it is incorrect. Both in the placement of the uprights, and the gun hubs.
And the view from the inside is the most important part.
Veiwing the planes from the outside is mere eye candy while being able to see from the inside can dramatically effect gameplay.
Personally outside of the position of the uprights (to the right and left) the angle and view of the depth is probably off a tad as well.
And those uprights either need to be twisted slightly to the left and right. If you loook closely at the uprights in the RL pick you can see they are very slightly angled outward and not perfectly square to the pilot.
Also they are probably tapered slightly outwards to accomidate the fitting of the glass.
On thinking about it We are assuming that those uprights from inside to out are at perfect 90 degree angles when they were probably tapered a bit being narrower inside then out otherwise installing,removing and replacing the glass would be a real PIA particularly considering its thickness.
Meaning that if we were looking at a cutaway of the right upright and down on it instead of front to back it would probably not look like
This. l
but more like this / (only slightly less dramatic)
They would be more narrow on the inside then the out to prevent the glass from being blown back into the cockpit and would also provide more support for the glass over a wider area then if it were perfectly square being more wedgelike then peglike
-
It has been a common way in many games to create separate inside and outside models, but... as far as I remember, AH uses just the one and same model for both inside and outside. I think HT gave such an answer in some old thread.
You can see it yourself by going to outside view and zooming in... you can actually get inside the plane that way. You can see e.g. teh paratroper standing inside the goonie bird with his hands up :)
-
Yea, as far as I know there is only one model, there is no inside and outside model.
If the model is wrong when viewed from the inside, I think it would have to be wrong when viewed from the inside.
Or I guess HTC could narrow down the dashboard and gauges instead :). That'd be a simple fix for the one problem lol.
-
Welll there is something being lost somewhere between the outside and the inside cause those uprights definately arent right. Neither from the position on the dash nor in relation to the gun hubs, which themselves are also shaped incorrectly.
As far as the thickness of the uprights (glass thickness) Im thinking perhaps its somehow getting flattened out so as not to produce the 3d effect/view they need to, to be correct.
Though I still beleive the angle to be slightly off and not square as well as per my above post