Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Schlowy on September 19, 2008, 06:56:05 PM
-
The question everyones afraid to ask!
I bet ya could lose some friends if ya put yer buddies plane on this list! No more check 6's! We're talking serious stuff here!
Some of us probly going like this... :uhoh <-- considering their back window! :rofl
-
190s except D9 and 152.
-
Which planes should have it? It isn't a matter of being punitive, it is a realism issue. The F6F didn't have a bubble canopy like the P-51D or Fw190s and it didn't have a bulged canopy like the Spitfires and P-51B. It is kinda stuck where it is due to being a razor back fighter without those features.
-
This reminds me of a question I had about the F4U's; why can you look so far around the backplate? It is kind of like you are sticking your head out of the cockpit. If your looking out of the left-rear of the cockpit with your view as far out as it goes, you can see stuff on the left side of the rudder. Does this seem weird to anyone else? Having seen F4U cockpits, it doesn't seem like this should be possible.
-
Even in a bubble canopy the views are still too generous. I went for a flight in a CJ6 last week and it has an almost entirely unrestricted canopy with no armour at all. Just the fact that you're strapped in and in a tight space means that you can't get the sort of visibility you can in AH. The 'straight-back' look shouldn't be possible in AH. At best, you should be able to see the rear section of aircraft out of the corner of your eye and that's it.
-
190s except D9 and 152.
The difference would be noticable, but small. The different canopy style did not flare out that much.
-
This reminds me of a question I had about the F4U's; why can you look so far around the backplate? It is kind of like you are sticking your head out of the cockpit. If your looking out of the left-rear of the cockpit with your view as far out as it goes, you can see stuff on the left side of the rudder. Does this seem weird to anyone else? Having seen F4U cockpits, it doesn't seem like this should be possible.
Bingo. I was amazed at the views being so much better on the F4U as opposed to the F6F. I seriously doubt you could see that well behind you. Now the Hellcat rear views are even worse. I think they should be changed back. Many things in this game are concessions to playability. No doubt much work was involved in the updating of the F6F. It would be a shame if it loses popularity because of the views.
-
I wont be flying it much. Seems the past few plane updates have involved alot of iron work, and minor adjustment abilities. So minor, it almost doesnt matter.
-
Even though it's one of my most used planes I haven't tried the "new" F6F yet. I hope it's not as bad as everyone says.
I don't think trading playability for relalism is a good trade-off if it's as bad as it sounds. What's next? No rear views? No way to turn your head around? Everyone always has a blind six? That would be more realistic. That will be fun. :rolleyes:
-
F6what?
-
There are a couple open cockpit days coming up at the New England Air Museum... They have an F4U and an F6F... If I end up going I'll be the only guy taking pictures of the six view :)
-
Why would every aircraft have a blind 6? If an aircraft was infamous for poor vision, then so be it. It pains me to say it but the 109 is probably a little generous in its rear quarter views... Though that probably makes up for the overly restrictive forward canopy framing.... The IL2 shouldn't be the only aircraft to suffer from historically poor visibilty.
-
Vudak, make sure you keep your body pressed into the seat when you do that. Our pilot views are waayyyy to mobile, in my opinion.
-
There are a couple open cockpit days coming up at the New England Air Museum... They have an F4U and an F6F... If I end up going I'll be the only guy taking pictures of the six view :)
Vudak, they don't open up the F6 for the open cockpit day.
They open the P47, the F4U4, the F100, the F14, and the Huey, but not the F6 or the B25H.
-
In that case, I suggest the F6 pilots of AH begin to pool a bribe fund in order to get vudak and his camera in that cockpit.
-
I forgot who it was, but someone in AH volunteered alot of hours at that museum. Maybe that individual can get the photos we need...
-
i flew the F6F quit a bit tonight, love it as much now as i did before. plane has crap view, duh. The view we had before was nothing like i had heard descirbed for the F6F, it was to much.
-
Vudak, they don't open up the F6 for the open cockpit day.
They open the P47, the F4U4, the F100, the F14, and the Huey, but not the F6 or the B25H.
Rats. Well, at the least I could get a picture of the F4U4's and see if that matches up. Maybe someone else lives near a Museum where they can get the F6F view. Or maybe talking to the right person could get a picture taken by an employee. (Edit - Del, you posted while I typed this... Really though, it's a museum. They want to spread interest. It would probably be possible to get this done, albeit not during regular hours and probably not by a regular visitor).
---
Xasthur - just simulate it in your own chair... The field of view is pretty close... The problem is one side isn't blurred out by peripheral vision. Just look at it as a concession to that... Perhaps a few degrees off, but not much.
-
They aren't going to do it for any joe off the street, that is why I recommended we have a current volunteer try and do the camera work.
-
Vudak, make sure you keep your body pressed into the seat when you do that. Our pilot views are waayyyy to mobile, in my opinion.
ww2 pilots weren't strapped in anywhere near as tight as modern day jet pilots.
-
I do not understand why the view behind on the Typhoon and Tempest is so much worse than the bubblejug and mustang - was the armour plate that much bigger? IIRC the first bubble canopy the Americans used were the same as those on the Typhoon?
(http://www.vicflintham.co.uk/content/post-war-military-aircraft/typhtem/typh1.jpg)
(http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/wallpapers/1945/tempestv1024.jpg)
(http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle2/p-47d_n4747p/images/p-47d_n4747p_07_of_36.jpg)
-
If the Typhoon gets a face lift any time soon, I'm sure they'll even it out a little.
I think it is more to do with the fact that the Jug and 51 are both gen 2 or later models and the Typh is an earlier one, like the Mossie.
-
Why would every aircraft have a blind 6?
Because I don't know about you but I'm not Linda Blair. I can't turn my head 180 degrees.
-
You dont have to an owl neck to see behind you in the real Cat. Just like most fighters it would be counter-productive to restrain yourself in such a way you cant move in order to check your own six. Some aircraft even have grips intended for the pilot to hold while pulling Gs so he can keep his mark-1 eyeball on his opponent. At least such devices have been commented on in books I have read and other games (F4AF). Of course even then it will never be a perfectly framed ninety-degree FOV six view. Some concessions just have to be made though IMO or the F6F will become a 'hangar queen.'
-
You dont have to an owl neck to see behind you in the real Cat. Just like most fighters it would be counter-productive to restrain yourself in such a way you cant move in order to check your own six. Some aircraft even have grips intended for the pilot to hold while pulling Gs so he can keep his mark-1 eyeball on his opponent. At least such devices have been commented on in books I have read and other games (F4AF). Of course even then it will never be a perfectly framed ninety-degree FOV six view. Some concessions just have to be made though IMO or the F6F will become a 'hangar queen.'
I fear that HiTech is trying to make the views "realistic." If that's the case, almost all of the fighters will have severely restricted views compared to what they have now, and the fun factor will suffer accordingly.
-
Vudak, make sure you keep your body pressed into the seat when you do that. Our pilot views are waayyyy to mobile, in my opinion.
Have you ever flown in a fighter, or even an advanced trainer (AT-6 or T-28)?
These are not F1 racers where the driver is virtually immobile. The shoulder harness is not worn so tight as to restrict pivoting in the seat. I've ridden brakes on an F6F-5 when we towed it from storage. Visibility to the rear is far better than we have now. You easily stick your head out of the canopy to see as you taxi, all the while strapped in for takeoff.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Because I don't know about you but I'm not Linda Blair. I can't turn my head 180 degrees.
i dunno about you, but i'm a normal human and can rotate my torso and neck around a thing called a spine. my eyes work well too - neat thing called peripheral vision. if anything we're already more blind in AH in any plane than we ever would be in R/L. :noid
-
Have you ever flown in a fighter, or even an advanced trainer (AT-6 or T-28)?
These are not F1 racers where the driver is virtually immobile. The shoulder harness is not worn so tight as to restrict pivoting in the seat. I've ridden brakes on an F6F-5 when we towed it from storage. Visibility to the rear is far better than we have now. You easily stick your head out of the canopy to see as you taxi, all the while strapped in for takeoff.
My regards,
Widewing
how many G's were you pulling when you rode the brakes. tee hee
p.s. oh yea, congrates on riding brakes, I'm sure some give a crap.
-
hmmmm. Looks like F6Fs will end up like Fw-190s.
Like Fw-190s, F6Fs will rely heavily on wingman tactics.
Fw 190 needs wingman in battle to compensate for lack of sustained manuverability.
F6F needs wingman in battle to watch for each others' 6.
-
i flew the F6F quit a bit tonight, love it as much now as i did before. plane has crap view, duh. The view we had before was nothing like i had heard descirbed for the F6F, it was to much.
wow, was your story you heard of any reputable source? or did you get it off the History Channel?
why be an bellybutton when someone trys to show they have 1st hand knowledge of what may be capable in a certian plane?
-
WWII fighter pilots were not strapped in like that. The shoulder harnesses were worn loose so that they had the mobility to look around. I recall a Spitfire pilot saying he could see his vertical stabilizer with ease and a P-51 pilot saying he could look back to his right and see his left horizontal stabilizer.
-
Well, that's interesting. I'm not about to argue with pilot testimony. Unless they had seriously tight lap harnesses their skulls must have taken a slight pounding in tight fights. I'm no stunt pilot or expert but I have flown in a 2 seater, piston engine trainer and during the inverted manuevers I was banging my head on the roof of the canopy of the CJ6 even with the shoulder straps done up tight. I'm not short, though, so perhaps it is a case of different styles of strapping. Suffice to say that I am not just talking out of my a-rse.
-
Don't forget the rearview mirrors. :rock
-
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a217/sarahjeanb/Peters/mirrors.jpg)
-
Was curious to see just how little rear view angle the new F6F has compared to the old one. Scary, isn't it? :)
This might be useful to compare to any future in-cockpit photos as well.
Personally I feel the old views were unrealistically good. To put your head where it would have to be to see the old 6 view it would need to be resting on the gunsight. OTOH maybe they could allow a little more sideways movement on the rear/45 views to get your head closer to the glass.
(http://www.gfg06.dial.pipex.com/screenshots1/F6Fviewangles.jpg)
-
i have no problem with any planes, but the f6f rearview. I love the new F6 look, however im not flying it cause i may as well not look behind me, you cant see anything.
-
i dunno about you, but i'm a normal human and can rotate my torso and neck around a thing called a spine. my eyes work well too - neat thing called peripheral vision. if anything we're already more blind in AH in any plane than we ever would be in R/L. :noid
And in addition to that we have 2 eyes stereo vision, which means depth perception and also kind of enables us to see "through" thinner frames. One can try this with by placing an erect thumb half way between the eyes and the computer screen. The thumb does to cover any text, because each eye can see around it.
So, we cannot have the thing called "realism" on the computer screen, but we can evaluate what is the result of a simulated thinggy compared to the real thing. The 3D model may be exact, but an enemy plane can hide behind it on the computer screen, whereas in real life one would see the enemy all the time.
To me it is a question of principle and main goal... to make a simulation of WW2 planes (engineering approach)... or to make a simulation of WW2 pilots flying those planes, of WW2 air combat (more humanist[?] approach). How to balance between the "technical truth" and the "being there" sides of an issue?