Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Professor Fate on May 31, 2001, 04:28:00 PM
-
It's that time again (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) could the priority to fix the 109 front view be bumped up some I know pilot visibility was bad in these craft but the ones in AH are even more so IMO.
(http://members.home.net/winyah999/bf109.jpg)
(http://members.home.net/winyah999/bf109ahss.gif)
---------------
(http://members.home.net/winyah999/ProfFate.jpg)
I AM PROFESSOR FATE! (http://members.home.net/winyah999/proffate.wav)
[This message has been edited by Professor Fate (edited 05-31-2001).]
-
i see what you mean..those struts on front screen are almost 3 times as thick! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Hazed
9./JG54
-
The top photo isn't taken from the perspective of a guy actually sitting in the cockpit; it is raised signifigantly.
J_A_B
-
yes I understand the photo is at a different angle but the front struts do not converge towards the nose of the craft as does the one in AH nor do they appear as wide. It has been brought to their attention in the past by 'NathBDP' they said it wasn't a high priority, I was just asking if it could be (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Professor Fate (edited 05-31-2001).]
-
The problem isn't the modelling, but the way 3d objects are represented on a 2d surface.
Unfortunately, planes like the 109s and 190s suffer because things get disproprortionately large. take to overhead rail of the 190, or the bars on the 109.
Thew following pic shows that it's modelled correctly in the 3d model.
(http://stsantas.tripod.com/109.jpg)
Unfortunately, once you do some math to get the 3d stuff done, it ends up looking a wee bit weird.
------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://stsantas.tripod.com/stsanta.jpg)
-
1. The cockpit shown is without armourglass and appears to be the rounded top canopy type, from an E-3 or earlier model. The one shown from AH is the F-4, which had armoured front glass requiring thicker frames.
2. The FOV/perspective in the AH view makes the convergence of the front frames look much worse than it actually is. Try this: Zoom(use z view which changes FOV) in as far as possible, then switch to the F3 view and look at the cockpit from directly above. The actual convergence of the front frames is small(and it appears to be assymetric?).
-
I agree, too thick in the game.
Perspective isn't excuse here, when looking at the cockpit.
-
The example pic in the first post is completely irrelevant as it's not a real combat ME-109. Look at this Italian pilot in a ME-109-G6. This pic as well as others easily shows the 109 has the smallest, cramped cockpit of just about any WWII fighter.
IMO there is TOO much visibility in the AH 109's.
(http://www.townisp.com/~jugdriver/BriniMe109.jpg)
-Westy
-
The first picture in this thread is a real combat 109. It is clearly a 109E3, and Westy 109E3 saw a lot of combat.
-
Originally posted by Westy MOL:
IMO there is TOO much visibility in the AH 109's.
...and almost blind F4u and F6F can see very well behind.
Not to talk about those neckless pilots that can see right behind, while being strapped on the seat.
-
Fishu, you're are wrong. Strapped into a seat is not the same as being nailed to a seat back, torso and neck, with no mobility.
The USAAF pilots "seat belt was a wide webbed belt with a latch that would enclose the ends of the shoulder harness (two web straps). The seat belt was cinched up tight and sometimes might have to be tightened during the flight. The shoulder harness was the inertial type so that the pilot was free to lean forward. There was plenty of room for shoulder, neck and head turning to look behind, at least as far as the aircraft construction would allow.."
Maybe the LW should have tried something similar? It would appear the LW made the 109 pilots strap in as if they were being launched on a V-2 rocket. If so too bad for the LW modelled views. The US planes did nto have any such restriction other than physical view blockage.
Where the people get this totally eronious idea that a WWII fighter pilot could NOT look behind by moving his upper torso, shoulders, neck and eyes??
Grunherz, I was under the impression that the first picture had no armoured glass and was not a regular production or combat version. Perhaps when AH has an E3 that picture could be used?
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy MOL (edited 06-01-2001).]
-
I thought the front view of a 109 should be some what wider than it is. Right now the front struts (or whatever ya call'em) appear to narrow or converge near the nose of the craft versus the parallel appearance of any model 109 I've ever seen, real or simulated. That was the view I was primarily concerned about, now if that means even less visibilty elsewhere then so be it as long as it's 'historical' I could live with it. But of course if this is as close as HTC can get then I can live with that too (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
"...as long as it's 'historical' I could live with it"
I agree and I also think that is what most of us want with all the planes. IMO, several aircraft really need the limits of thier views checked out. However a lack of rear view mirrors for those that had them means I'm not going to be soliciting HTC for anything to get changed ....yet.
-Westy
-
proffesor_fate=trojan_wabbit?
-
Originally posted by Westy MOL:
Where the people get this totally eronious idea that a WWII fighter pilot could NOT look behind by moving his upper torso, shoulders, neck and eyes??
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy MOL (edited 06-01-2001).]
Probably from the same place that led them to believe that a real WW2 pilot could not lean forward over his dash and crank his neck around through 180 degrees to check his high 6 while pulling 7g's in a break turn (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Ya gotta admit Westy, the allowances made in the AH view system are far from what was really available to pilots in WW2.
-
And you gotta admit....
A flat 2D screen that's 17" wide and contains a view that is a fraction of the area of vision a real pilot would have. And that's before you take into consideration things like peripheral vision.
Trying to constrain the view system to "realistic head positions" is just plain ridiculous when we don't have realistic vision in almost every other respect. Just like we need to have icons to make up for the poor substitute for vision that these computer monitors are, we have to make allowances with a viewing system. Allowing more viewing angles is required to make up for the loss of area of vision and peripheral vision inherent in a simulation like this. Limit it too much, and it's much LESS realistic in terms of what the pilot could really see.
Now certainly, there are a few adjustments that could be made, particularly things like where the pilot can stick his head through the glass, and some sort of G effects. However, the system we have now is pretty damn good IMHO, and limiting the view positions just to make it more difficult is not going to make it any better. Some allowances have to be made for the medium we are working with.
------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer
A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com
Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome (http://lephturn.webhop.net) for AH articles and training info!
-
I've already admitted in several topics that IMO several aircraft have too much latitude in some views. Not that many and only a few views at that.
I just do not agree with your description, or overall point in regard to the six view. It almost sounds like you're getting an excuse ready and on stand by for WW2O (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
If we were real pilots we would not have our shoulders bolted to our seat backs and we would not be literally rendered immobile. I've already added real life pilot testimony to help back up my opinion which is based on having sat in several WWII fighters as well as what I've been told from many WWII Pilots who flew these planes. Cessna types and light aerobatic aircraft don't compare at all and they make a very sad testimony to any developer who would use that experience to justify removing so much of the field of view.
We do not have working rear view mirrors in AH for any of the razor back type planes; Spit, 109, P-47 etc. For that there should be some leeway as a compromise. Or untill we all have 1.7ghz computers with $800.00 gfx cards in them to handle the extra load a rear view mirrior would create here.
However I do believe that in any sim we should NOT be able to go from a 7 view to a 5 view without having to go all the way forward and around first.
And the icons problem is a critical peice in all this.
BTW, I thought you quit AH? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-Westy
-
WW2 pilots account that rear mirrors were rendered practically useless due to vibrations...
Hmm - wonder what happens to a pilot who's not strapped in and tries to fly ACM or any other kind of aerobatics... (I think I saw a funny action flick where a pilot fell from his spitfire flying inverted... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) - it's from the iron eagle series if I recall right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) )
-
Apples 'n Oranges.
Computer Monitor vs Real World Eye balls with peripheral vision.
17" Leph? You lucky bastard, some of us out there still have 15".
You just can't recreate some things on a 2D monitor screen....
When 3D glasses come out with the full ability to rotate your head everywhich way, have good peripheral vision and don't burn your eye balls into BBQ... THEN we can revisit this topic about restricting views.
-SW
-
And the rear view mirror being made useless by vibrations is BS in many situations.
Sure, you can't see something closing in from several miles behind you because the little speck will jump all over the place. But at close ranges, a vibrating mirror still works quite well. More for checking the blind spot in close fighting then scanning.
Get some mud tires and a good stereo and try highway speeds someday...you can still see very well (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (yeah yeah it's a crappy comparison but I have to live with it daily)
-
"Hmm - wonder what happens to a pilot who's not strapped in and tries to fly ACM or any other kind of aerobatics..."
I guess you imagine they bounce around like a Mexican jumping bean. Wrong. Simple centrifugal force does the job. It keeps them in thier seat except for whenever they might find themselves stalled out completely at the top of a loop in which case the seat belt holds them in. Ironeagles? Hollywood? <patooey!>
Do you imagine these guys as wet noodle neck, coach potatoes flabby boys sitting in a cockpit and being bounced left and right and forward and back ward? By what? Basic physics are at play. Action gets a reaction. What are they and thier aircraft flying into or hitting that would cause them to jerk about in a cockpit? Even winds wouldn't do it unless it was a really bad storm.
The only time any of the pilots, I've asked about this, commented on being jostled in the cockpit was when 88mm ack went off too close and the impact of the energy from that shook thier plane.
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy MOL (edited 06-05-2001).]
-
Well, the neggies will lift you out of your seat some. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
The positives just press you into it.
-
Kirin, when I flew the AT-6 Texan thru aerobatics, I was very loosely strapped in and could easily move my body around. And even though I felt I was not secure in the seat before we took off, the instructor pilot told me I had the straps too tight.
He was right. Never once did I feel like I was gonna flop around the cockpit.
We flew just about every standard aerobatic manuever you can think off, up to 5 G's.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Westy - for all who didn't get it: The Iron Eagle thingy was a joke!! But true anyhow, fly inverted without being strapped in (tight or loose) you gonna get serious head ache (canopy closed) or even more serious head ache (canopy open)...
Physics - yup that's the point. Action-Reaction: alright, imagine hard breaks, violent jinks, going from +6Gs to -2Gs in seconds - quickly changing the force vector on your mass. As long as the force vector is pointed towards your seat NP - no matter how many Gs u pull (keeping out of discussion that your head will weigh a lot more), agreed. But if you try the famous escape manouvers early 109s used vs. early spits (push the stick to the edge) you better be strapped in good or your head gonna make a nice bloody mark on your canopy.
Verm, I believe you... still I say that in aircombat you will apply much harsher manouvers, g-load changes, negative g conditions etc. that will require good strapping (maybe not like being clued to your seat but still more than AH induces with its unrestricted head movement capabilites)...
-
Hmm... just made up my mind (to a certain extent)...
Not being strapped in would mean that your body will only feel earths gravitation and the forces from the seat (nullifying g from the bottom and giving you a forward vector from the back) - if your manouvering induces any changes of the planes flight vector other than in any direction your seat can compensate (e.g. -g, deceleration) your body will travel on in that direction (what is Trägheit called in english??) it was moving before. So better have some force (belt) compensating or you'll flop around like a mexican bean.
Basic physics, bad english...
-
I'm sure there's a few military fighter pilots that fly AH, why not ask them rather than second guessing everything?
-SW
-
Yes, but maneuvers in an aircraft are not extreme nor are they sudden and abrupt change of directions unless effected by an extrenal force. The pilot knows where he is directing his aircraft and his body subconciuously anticipates and accomodates any changes brought by maneuvers. So even on the sharpest turn, tightest loop the pilot isn't bounced all around in a cockpit out of control. It's not as if he is an unaware and passive passenger in his own aircraft who does not know what is happening or what direction the plane may be going in.
-Westy
-
[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Professor Fate ]
-
Westy...rolling and slipping, especially the way it's done in AH, will severly throw you around in the cockpit...add the outside maneuvers to that and you will need to be strapped in.
Also..initial the US used the RAF style 4-point Sutton harness, which unless is strapped *tight*, is useless. (If you dont believ me, I will happily arrange for you to go up in a Tiger Moth and do aeros without strapping in tightly.).
Yes 'gentleman-aerobatic' will keep you with positive G's throughout, even if it means pinching the loop, but I would hardly call the ACM in AH for 'gentle' :D
Daff
-
Btw, apparently the windscreen on a 190 doesn't converge near the fuselage either.
(http://members.home.net/winyah999/gun190.jpg)
don't think I need to post an ahss to compare.
[ 06-16-2001: Message edited by: Professor Fate ]
-
Sorry Daff. I do not agree. I'm not trying to flame or be disrespectful on it. Maybe the Spit and 109 pilots were different but to a man, the P47 and F4U pilots I've talked with did not strap themselves in as you (and some others would) infer.
As for the Tiger Moth? That and a WWII Fighter are apples and oranges. Although I would *sincerely* love to take you up on your offer. :)
Prof Fate, don't push too hard or your mask will fall off.
-Westy
[ 06-16-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]
-
hey, I only wear a mask at halloween.
(http://members.home.net/winyah999/ProfFate.jpg)
I AM PROFESSOR FATE! (http://members.home.net/winyah999/proffate.wav)
[ 06-16-2001: Message edited by: Professor Fate ]
-
I've Been reading these 109 view threads for months, and have thrown some cylindars together to approximate what we see in ah, versus photographs.
(http://people.mw.mediaone.net/starbour/top_view.jpg)
This image shows ortho view looking down on the struts. The uprights are parallel, slightly angled back.
(http://people.mw.mediaone.net/starbour/35mmfov.jpg)
This is an apporximation of the image that Pofessor Fate has given us at the top of the thread. Simulating a 35mm lens (no zoom or anything). You can see that the front uprights come together slightly, but not enough for concern. You are looking down into what would be the cockpit, just behind and above the horizontal bars.
(http://people.mw.mediaone.net/starbour/fov90.jpg)
This is the type of view we have in AH. Taken about where the pilot sits. The field of view is 90 degrees (opposed to about 50 in the 35mm shot). You can see that the uprights are coming together quite a bit at the bottom.
The only way to get rid of this illusion is to make the uprights perpendicular to the rest of the frame. Which would skew the external view slightly.
Note that I didn't model this to scale, but hould be a good representation anyhow. :)
[edit]
ok, pictures should work now. :)
[ 06-17-2001: Message edited by: Starbird ]