Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Xasthur on March 09, 2008, 10:54:30 AM
-
I noticed a discussion on the thickness of the canopy rails in the 109s in-game here and I found this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUcENor7X_0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUcENor7X_0)
The rails in this clip look drastically thinner than the ones we have.
Food for thought, perhaps?
-Arch
-
I've always felt that way about D-11 too---entire buff formations disappear behind those things, since the 'art-redo'
-
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/109_ref_straight.jpg)
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/bk/cpit/109_ref_diag.jpg)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,167723.45.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,165351.html
-
The skeptics are just going to say that the upper rails should be widened to match the photos shown here.... But two things strike me as obvious:
1. The Mg131 breeches look too big in AH.
2. The front windscreen of AH has different dimensions than that shown in the photo.
-
Just for grins, I'm just curious if anyone knows the distance from where the top of the fuselage meets the front windshield to the top of the canopy.
I know what it is...just want to see what ballpark we're playing in. :D
-
hmmm...vertically or 'as the crow flies'?
-
Just for grins, I'm just curious if anyone knows the distance from where the top of the fuselage meets the front windshield to the top of the canopy.
I know what it is...just want to see what ballpark we're playing in. :D
:rofl
-
And that has to do what with anything?
-
If you were sitting in the cockpit and placed your left hand on the center of the panel shade next to the gunsight, and then placed your right hand to where it's back was touching the glass at the top - it would be around 175mm, or aprox. 6.8 inches. a compact disc is approx 4.75 inches as comparison.
Anyway, after comparing some recently found engineering diagrams to the 3d model, I did find an error, which is that the cross bar above the armored glass - It should actually be an inch lower than it currently is. Which would give the following rough results: 109A.jpg is the current layout, and 109b.jpg is a rough photoshop of lowering an inch.
-
That at least gives the windscreen a closer proportion to the photographs. I'm still curious about the pictures BlauK posted- why do the bars appear so much smaller in photos than they do ingame? Different plane types, refraction by the glass, lack of perspective ingame, or just modelled too wide? I know you guys aren't just pulling numbers out of your butts, but the obvious differences (even though the pictures aren't taken from exactly the same angles) have puzzled quite a few of us.
-
Is it just me or does the prop (ingame) look too big also?
-
well im happy with the 109 they way it is, if they change the rails that would be better but it wouldent realy help me dogfight better, even thow i fight good in it all ready :aok
-
Hubs,
it is the refraction. It is discussed in the threads above (links below those pics). The game does not have any solid armored glasses and it does not calculate any refractions. Also the 3D models have been built without compensation (faking) to make the view closer to what it looks like in real.
Probably it is seen as such a minor detail or too much work in a situation where that work is rather put elsewhere.
However, for a 109 jockey it makes life unnecessarily difficult in a plane which often requires deflection shooting (being no turn fighter).
-
That at least gives the windscreen a closer proportion to the photographs. I'm still curious about the pictures BlauK posted- why do the bars appear so much smaller in photos than they do ingame? Different plane types, refraction by the glass, lack of perspective ingame, or just modelled too wide? I know you guys aren't just pulling numbers out of your butts, but the obvious differences (even though the pictures aren't taken from exactly the same angles) have puzzled quite a few of us.
My question to that is, are the photos in BlauK's photographs a real 109, or a Buchon 109 windscreen on a Me109?
-
Waffle,
the refraction also works at the bottom edge of the glass ;)
Therefore it makes the opening appear higher, the fuselage is as high as it is in the 3D model, but it appears to be lower.
The first pic at this page, Refraction of light
by Rick Reed, http://www.ps.missouri.edu/rickspage/refract/refraction.html (http://www.ps.missouri.edu/rickspage/refract/refraction.html) illustrates nicely how the fuselage (yellow color at left) is higher than what it appears (yellow color at right).
Only lowering the top horizontal frame does not address the real problem of overly restricted horizontal view. Furthermore, the refraction also allows one to see partly around the top frame ;)
Anyhow, all this debate is moot if there is no will to see this as a problem.
Bodhi,
afaik, it is the 109G-6 at Tikkakoski, Finland. No Buchons here.
-
Well this is certainly interesting information.....
-
I don't have anything to add really except that I'm in agreement with Blauk. I just thought that some of you might find this interesting. I took the pic in a small local aviation museum.
G-6's armored glass:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/100_1768.jpg)
http://yhdistykset.etela-karjala.fi/imuseo/ (http://yhdistykset.etela-karjala.fi/imuseo/)
Waffle, I do know that your time is limited but if possible, I would gladly see these small corrections in the 3D model. Also, the prop blades reach the runway on a take off run...and pitot tubes would be nice! ;)